Debates of 17 Jul 2019

MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:48 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 10:48 a.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:48 a.m.
Hon Members, we will commence with the Correction of Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, 16th July, 2019.
Pages 1…10 --
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:48 a.m.
Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Iddrisu 10:48 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on page 10, I do not know whether the order of report must necessarily follow the chronology of events, but I believe it should be so.
Mr Speaker, after the swearing-in of Mr Speaker as Acting President, we cannot have items listed 14, 15, 16 and 17. Those events preceded the swearing-in, which was the last activity we performed. When we read from items listed 13 to 17, there is a disconnection. With your permission, I beg to read:
13. “The Hon First Deputy Speaker on behalf of the House, congratulated the Rt. Hon Speaker on his assumption of office as Acting President of the Republic and wished him well.”
In the next item, we have a report of the Votes and Proceedings and others. That was not what transpired in this House by the order of events. I hope I am right? So, the Table Office cannot miss this.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:48 a.m.
Obviously, there has been a misarrangement of the proceedings. I think that items numbered 6, 7, 8…13 should rather proceed -- [Pause.]
First, after the Hon First Deputy Speaker's message of congratulation, there is no report of the congratulatory messages of the Hon Leaders.
[Interruption.] Are they on page 12? Well, that also undermines the reportage. [Laughter.]
I have been advised that this reporting style can be discerned from all the reports, when we have had such a break and resumption. So we should probably take our time and reconsider how we prefer the reportage.
What is important is that the various events are captured in the Votes and Proceedings; but the chronology of events, I have been advised, is how it has been done over the years. Once every event has been captured, we will leave it to the Table Office to present it as it knows how.
Pages 11…17.
Hon Members, the 29th Sitting of the Second Meeting --
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:48 a.m.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:48 a.m.
Mr Speaker, as you have rightly observed, I think it is just a mix-up.
All these activities, beginning with item listed 14 on page 10, should follow immediately after item listed 4; that is, the list of Hon Members absent. After that list, we could begin with item listed 14 because then we went into the Votes and Proceedings. That would then follow through up to page 17, item numbered 23.
Then, we would continue with item listed 5 up to item listed 6. Indeed, the suspension of the Sitting would even have to come after the item listed 6.
It was after the Sitting that we came to perform those events from items numbered 7 to 13. After completing the item numbered 13, we concluded with item numbered 24, as listed here. There was a jumble up of the amendments.
As you said, I believe the Table Officers could be advised to do what is appropriate.
[Pause.] --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:58 a.m.
Very well.
Hon Members, at the Business Committee meeting, the order of this Business would be discussed with the Table Office. I am advised that this
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the order of Business is set out in part eight of our Standing Orders, beginning from Standing Order 53. However, as and when it becomes necessary, we vary the arrangement.
When the arrangement is varied, we would not have to conform to this in reporting that; for instance, if an address by the President comes at the tail end of proceedings, it should be situated in the order of Business as set out in the Standing Orders. I believe it is totally wrong.
The order of Business could be varied and, if it is so varied, then it should reflect how Business was transacted. Otherwise, we would jumble up the time. Therefore if anybody had done so in the past, I would suggest strongly that it was the
wrong practise, which should be corrected.
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 10:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I believe that the Hon Majority Leader should respect your ruling on this matter. The same Standing Orders provides that the Clerk-to-Parliament is the principal advisor of the Rt Hon Speaker on issues like this.
Mr Speaker, again, the same Standing Orders provides that your principal advisor to the Standing Orders is the Clerk-to-Parliament. Precedence and convention is important in our parliamentary practice. Therefore, your ruling must be upheld.
Mr Speaker, when we discuss it and decide that we would want a departure from such a procedure, then we would collectively say so.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:58 a.m.
Thank you for the observation.
I would proceed.
Hon Members, I would first order that the Votes and Proceedings for the 29th Sitting of the Second Meeting is hereby adopted as the true record of proceedings.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:58 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member for New Juabeng South?
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 10:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, once you have already given your ruling on the Votes and Proceedings, I do not know if I could revisit the issue because I wanted to come on a point of order --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:58 a.m.
Hon Member, which issue?
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 10:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader said that the Clerk-to-Parliament is the principal advisor to the Rt Hon Speaker, but I wanted to point to him Standing Orders 5 and 6. I, however, do not know if I could --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:58 a.m.
Hon Member, you are out of order.
Hon Members, we have the Official Report of Wednesday, 19th June, 2019 for correction.
Hon Members, any corrections?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:58 a.m.
Hon Members, there is a Statement in the name of the Hon Member for Nkawkaw; Hon Eric Kwakye Darfour.
Hon Member, you may read your Statement.
STATEMENTS 10:58 a.m.
Mr Eric Kwakye Darfour (NPP -- Nkawkaw) 10:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to make this Statement.
Every July 14, France celebrates Bastille Day (referred to as La Fete de la Bastille or La Fete Nationale in French), which marks the storming of the Bastille Prison in 1789. Though it took several reinstated monarchies and bloody revolutions to establish an enduring Republic, the destruction of the Bastille Prison in central Paris was chosen as a symbol of France's primordial agitation for democracy. Bastille Day is also an occasion to celebrate the fall of 40,000 people who lost their lives for France to rise.
The revolution, which took place exactly 230 years ago, sought to establish freedom, equality and fraternity, which became France's motto, as they say in French, Liberté,
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:08 a.m.
Monsieur Yieleh Chireh? [Laughter]
Mr Joseph Yieleh Chireh (NDC - Wa West) 11:08 a.m.
Monsieur le President de le (du) Parliament du Ghana. I
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:08 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Oforikrom?
Dr Emmanuel Marfo (NPP -- Oforikrom) 11:08 a.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Let me commend the Hon Member who made the Statement and observe that nothing would cement the relationship between Ghana and France or French- speaking countries than having a widespread penetration of the French language in our country.
Mr Speaker, first of all, I would like to observe that the French language should be a national security language for us. This is because we cannot be a country surrounded by Francophone countries, but that majority of us are unable to speak the language. So, perish the thought, if anything bad happens and we would have to interact with the Francophone
countries, it would be difficult for many Ghanaians to communicate with our neighbours.
So, even as we commend the maker of the Statement, I think we need to remind ourselves that learning French is a very important and strategic endeavour that we should be mindful of, as a country. We should encourage many of us, especially the children, to take the French language very seriously.
Mr Speaker, I have a bad experience, and I do not know whether the Hon Minority Leader would remember; maybe, he has forgotten. In 1998, we were in a conference in Paris—the International Conference on Higher Education.
I was the Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research (ISSER) President, and the Hon Minority Leader was the National Union of Ghana Students (NUGS) President. I was going to my hotel, and I had forgotten my key.
When I got to the reception, how to say that I needed my key in French was a challenge to me. Mr Speaker, I became a sign language expert, and I communicated through signs to let the person know that I needed my key. The guy just looked at me and said, ‘‘pardon, pardon” but I did not know what to say.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:18 a.m.
Leadership?
Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu 11:18 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity, and I also commend Hon Eric Kwakye Darfour for the Statement on Bastille Day or the French National Day.
Mr Speaker, I had the opportunity, at the weekend, to join the Hon Minister for Gender, Children and Social Protection, Hon Cynthia Morrison, who represented President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo at the residence of the French Ambassador for the observation of the National Day.
It was refreshing and remarkable to have heard Ambassador Anne Sophie Ave when she indicated that she is the proud female Ambassador of the Republic of France to Ghana, as Ghana also has a female Ambassador in France. I recounted that even as we observed the French day, President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo was in France for an official State visit.
That only could be cementing further, the bond of friendship and mutually beneficial trade relationship that exits between our two countries.
Mr Speaker, indeed, I personally should be very thankful to the Ambassador and to the French National Assembly. I was in the Assemble Nationale in France on a study visit, and it was refreshing that as a guest of the National Assembly, I went through the usual Question time where about 15 Hon Ministers of State were subjected before the
National Assembly to answer Questions. I went through both Houses in order to appreciate what -- I am sure Hon Darfour would want to celebrate with me.
Mr Speaker, I have waited for the Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee to behave in a funny manner, and I would have refered to him as ‘‘le depute gerdieu; one of the things I learnt from the French Parliament -- but I would withdraw it because he is not deserving of it.
In France, if an Hon Member of Parliament was not of substance, the person was referred to as le depute gerdieu, as I sought to learn. As I said, I do not intend to use it, but just to elaborate that I attempted to speak some French -- as Hon Dr Marfo recounted our experience in 1998 at the World Conference on High Education in Paris.
Mr Speaker, as a former Hon Minister for Trade and Industry, I had the opportunity to go to France to get Ghana absorbed into the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as a member country -- we get some benefits by virtue of our membership of the OECD country. Again, the French were very supportive of Ghana's
application. I had to do so on behalf of the former Hon Minister for Finance, Mr Seth Terkper, at the time.
Mr Speaker, on bilateral relationship between Ghana and France, we should look at the trade numbers. Ghana could do much better, and we repeatedly said that we should look at the export regime, particularly the export of fruits, to that particular country because there is an opportunity; but our difficulty has been to meet the minimal conditions of that particular country.
However, there is a huge French presence, Meridian Port Services (MPS); the expanded port facility, is largely France. I am told that in the last few days -- [Interruption.] The Hon Chairman is contesting it. That was also said by the Ambassador and those who spoke at the Bastille Day at the residence of the French Ambassador.
I was told that the largest ship has now been accommodated in Ghana's water for the first time in history thanks to the expansion work that has taken place. When we need to fine-tune it at any time, we probably should be able to do so.
Mr Speaker, many other French countries also do a lot in terms of corporate social responsibility. We
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:18 a.m.
Majority leadership, do you wish to comment on the Statement?
Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei- Mensah-Bonsu) 11:28 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I would want to make a few remarks about the Statement that was ably made by Hon Eric Kwakye Darfour.
Mr Speaker, this Statement is on the observation of the Bastille Day. Bastille Day, in France, is recognised as the liberation day of France. The Hon Member drew our attention to the fact that in sub-Saharan Africa, Ghana is the seventh largest recipient of French investment -- that is mostly important.
This is because in West Africa, the French speaking countries number about 12, and that is not the entirety of sub-Saharan Africa, which would
include countries in Central Africa; which all together number over 17 in Africa. If Ghana is the seventh largest recipient of French investment, that should be a source of pride for all of us.
In the sub-region alone, one could count on Niger, Senegal, Mali, Guinea, Togo, Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Mauritania and Burkina Faso. Given the French colonial practice of Assimilation, they are very close to their erstwhile colonists.

So, that was why I said that if Ghana registered the seventh place in the consideration of investment, then certainly, Ghana occupies a special place in France-Africa relations.

Mr Speaker, we have cooperated with France in various areas; in particular, social, political, economic, educational and defence areas. We need to do that, in particular, because we are surrounded by French speaking countries.

The cooperation in the fight against terrorism lately has become very significant because, given what has happened in Libya and the trickle-

down effect in Mali and most recent times, in Burkina Faso, Ghana is under pressure to fortify our boundaries.

I refer, in particular, to the events that happened about three months or so ago close to the Burkina Faso side of Kulungugu when the Gendarmes came under serious attack by terrorists. Ghana and France are increasing and deepening the appropriation in the areas of defence in order to be able to ward off threats of terrorists to Ghana.

Mr Speaker, I have been to the Parliament of France on two occasions and we all learnt useful lessons in parliamentary practice. The second time was with the then Hon Speaker, Rt Hon Doe Adjaho. We carried with us fond memories about how they organise parliamentary proceedings. It was a joy to watch Question time and committees in- sitting and how they structure their own processes.

Mr Speaker, as I said, we all learnt very useful lessons and one of those we have transposed on our own review Orders -- I am only looking forward to an early unveiling of our new rules of procedure. It has been on the backburner for a very long time. Even though we have about
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:28 a.m.
Very well, Hon Members, that brings us to the end of Statements.
At the commencement of Public Business; Presentation of Papers.
Hon Majority Leader, which ones are ready?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:28 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the items numbered 4 and 5 is to be laid by the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Water Resources, Works and Housing. He is here but I see him shake his head that it is not ready. If we may listen to him.
Mr Nana Amoakoh 11:28 a.m.
Mr Speaker, it is all ready. I would like to lay the Paper.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:28 a.m.
Very well.
PAPERS 11:28 a.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah 11:28 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 80(1) which require that no Motion shall be debated until at least forty- eight hours have elapsed between the date on which notice of the Motion is given and the date on which the Motion is moved, the Motion for the adoption of the Report of the Finance Committee on the Request for waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, GETFund Levy, Import NHIL, EXIM Levy, and other imposts amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of two hundred and twenty-two thousand, one hundred and fifty-one United States dollars (US$222,151.00 [equivalent to Gh¢1,144,723.00]) on equipment to be procured by Yedent Agro Bulk Processing Company Limited under the implementation of the One District One Factory (1D1F) Programme may be moved today.
Mr Benjamin K. Kpodo 11:28 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
Question put and Motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:38 a.m.
The Hon Chairman of the Committee may now move item numbered 6 on the Order Paper.

Tax Waivers on Equipment under IDIF Programme (Yedent Agro Bulk Processing Co. Ltd)
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:38 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that this Honourable House adopts the Report of the Finance Committee on the Request for waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, GETFund Levy, Import NHIL, EXIM Levy, and other imposts amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of two hundred and twenty-two thousand, one hundred and fifty-one United States dollars (US$222,151.00 [equivalent to GH¢1,144,723.00]) on equipment to be procured by Yedent Agro Bulk Processing Company Limited under the implementation of the One District One Factory (1D1F) Programme.
Mr Speaker, in so doing, I present your Committee's Report.
1.0 Introduction
The request for the waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, GETFund Levy, Import NHIL, EXIM Levy and Other Imposts
amounting to two hundred and twenty- two thousand, one hundred and fifty-one United States dollars (equivalent to Gh¢1,144,723.00) on equipment to be procured by Yedent Agro Bulk Processing Company Limited under the implementation of the One District One Factory (IDIF) Programme was laid in the House on Tuesday, 2nd July, 2019 in accordance with article 174(2) of the Constitution, and referred to the Finance Committee for consideration and report pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House.
The Committee met with the Deputy Minister for Finance Hon Kwaku Kwarteng and a technical team from the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Trade and Industry, 1D1F Secretariat and the Ghana Revenue Authority to consider the request.
2.0 Documents Referred To
The Committee referred to the following documents during its deliberations:
The 1992 Constitution of Ghana;
The Public Financial Manage- ment Act, 2016 (Act 921);
The Standing Orders of the Parliament of Ghana; and
The 2019 Budget Statement and Economic Policy.
3.0 Background
On Friday, 3rd May, 2019, Parliament approved a request for the waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, GETFund Levy, Import NHIL, EXIM Levy on plant, machinery and equipment or parts as well as Corporate Tax for five (5) years of operation being tax incentives to support the implementation of the One District One Factory (IDIF) Programme.
The Resolution also required that all 1D 1F beneficiary entities prepare and submit the list of their purchases for tax assessment and submission to Parliament for consideration and approval.
Yedent Agro Group of Companies Limited was established in 2011. It is a leading agro-processer of grains in the country with a track record in processing blended fortified products like maisoyforte and tomvita, maize flour, bran for feed for the poultry and livestock industry, among others.
Yedent Company Limited applied for Government support in the area of tax waiver under the 1D1F Programme to enable it procure a new processing plant with diversified
Mr Benjamin K. Kpodo (NDC--Ho Central) 11:38 a.m.
Mr Speaker, you have conferred on me, a position and I will seek approval from my Hon Leader before I accept it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:38 a.m.
So I withdraw.
Hon Member for Ho Central, you may make your contribution.
Mr Kpodo 11:38 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion ably moved by the Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee.
Mr Speaker, the first point of concern is that the Hon Minister for Finance has been complaining about revenue targets not being met and it is the same Hon Minister who is bringing before us, waivers of taxes that can boost our total revenue for this country.
So we must be careful about the waivers that we are granting to all these companies. You remember that the last time, you brought to us here, blanket tax waivers for all 1D1F -- [Interruption.] Yes, it was blanket and we protested here that we could not --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:38 a.m.
Hon Member, hold on.
Yes, Hon Member for Okaikoi Central?
Mr Patrick Y. Boamah 11:38 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I plead with you to ask our Hon Colleague from Ho Central to withdraw that statement on the basis that this is a serious House and we take our work seriously.
Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Trade and Industry brought a document to this House, we debated it, it went through all the processes and the Finance Committee is taking steps to ensure that the decision of this House is adhered to.
An Hon Member of the Finance Committee attended all the Committee meetings and we have taken steps to approve of what we agreed; there was a Resolution and it is dated 3rd May, 2019 and we are complying. Then my Hon Colleague gets up to say that we gave a blanket approval, how can he say that?
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:38 a.m.
Hon Member for Ho Central, on page 2, second paragraph of the item numbered 3.0 - Background. I think that the explanation is offered that:
‘‘The Resolution also required that all 1D1F beneficiary entities
are to prepare and to submit the list of their purchases for tax assessment and submission to Parliament for consideration…''
So each individual company would submit its own request to the House for approval and therefore, there was no blanket tax waiver that --
Mr Kpodo 11:38 a.m.
Mr Speaker, you should have allowed me to conclude my statement. Indeed, a blanket request was brought here and we had to insist that it will not go that way and that every particular factory which wishes to have tax waivers, should submit its own --
I was going to say that it is good that we are complying. That was what I wanted to say and the Hon Member is saying that -- Was it not brought? It is a fact that, that was what was brought and the Hon Chairman knows about it; that we had to debate it. Is it not true? So, what do they want me to withdraw?
Mr Speaker, I just want to --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:38 a.m.
Hold on.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 11:38 a.m.
Mr Speaker, indeed, what came to us was the adoption of the principle and the House insisted that beyond that there should be an application for each of them as we are witnessing. We insisted that we should do that and the Ministry said that indeed, that was what was intended to be done.
Mr Speaker, so, for him to say that, but for our insistence, that was not going to be done, is really not the truth. The truth is that yes, I agree with him if he uses the word, ‘blanket' or maybe, general acceptance of the rule.
However, beyond that, what was required to be done is what we are seeing today. That is it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:48 a.m.
Hon Members, who has the power to grant tax waivers?
Very well.
So, Parliament did its work by insisting that all applications should be submitted for perusal and approval by the House, and that is what we are doing.
Hon Member, please proceed.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:48 a.m.
Hon Member, you were before the Committee and you --
Mr Kpodo 11:48 a.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, I was at the Committee --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:48 a.m.
Hon Member, could you listen. Were you a teacher? Some teachers do not like to listen to their students.
Hon Member, you were part of the Committee that prepared and brought this Report to us and if you had any objections to this company then it should have been contained in the Report. So, once the Report has verified and confirmed that the company is eligible then please spare us your rants. You could do that outside this Chamber, but please stick to the Report.
Please conclude and let us move on.
Mr Kpodo 11:48 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that I am only debating this particular issue and we all know what happens
at Committee sittings. When the Hon Chairman says that he would not allow something to go into the Report then it would never see the light of day and this is what happens. Mr Speaker, so, when we come to the Floor then we are free to vent our opinions and that is why I am here.
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:48 a.m.
-- rose --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:48 a.m.
Hon Member, you have mentioned the Hon Chairman and so I would listen to him.
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:48 a.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member said earlier that when the request from the Ministry of Trade and Industry came to the House -- I would use his words here -- “it was a request for a blanket approval.” Mr Speaker, it was this same Committee and this same House that said in our resolution that every specific request must come back.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:48 a.m.
Hon Chairman, his charge is that you do not allow them to make their points or speak up at the Committee level.
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:48 a.m.
Mr Speaker, that is why I am giving you a chronology of how it works. [Interruption.]
Some Hon Members 11:48 a.m.
You are a dictator.
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:48 a.m.
I admit that I am a dictator, but I am a benevolent dictator. [Laughter.]
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:48 a.m.
In this democratic dispensation there is no room for dictators whether benevolent or otherwise.
If you bring this up properly then I would probably encourage the Leadership to reshuffle the membership of the Finance Committee.
Hon Member, please conclude.
Mr Kpodo 11:48 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I thank the Hon Chairman who is a benevolent dictator.
Mr Speaker, I also want to find out the rate that was used in computing the tax waiver because we do not have it as 1.14 rather it is 1.199. This must be corrected because US$1 is equivalent to GH¢5.40.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Hon Deputy Minister?
Deputy Minister for Finance (Mr Kwaku Kwarteng) (MP): Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr Speaker, it is important that as we discuss this important national policy, we would address misunderstandings regarding firstly, the revenue matters that Hon Kpodo has raised. And to also address the suggestion that for every district to get a factory then we have to create new ones and perhaps even the old ones need help we allow them not to die. Mr Speaker, that is not the way to advance the 1D1F initiative.
Firstly, on the revenue targets when the Hon Minister came to this House, he made the point and we all heard him clearly, that in terms of year-on- year growth, revenue has been doing well especially when compared to recent years.
The targets have been ambitious and that is why we keep complaining that we are not achieving those targets. Mr Speaker, the way to deal with that is not to insist on drawing more taxes from the companies; we expect to expand to pay those taxes. This Government's strategy is to open up economic activities by granting reliefs to companies that are in a position to expand, employ more people and pay more taxes.
Mr Speaker, that is the strategy and so let us not confuse a strategy to expand growth and get more revenue with the suggestion that if we did not
collect taxes from the companies that need help, we would rather be working against revenue. This is the first point.
The second point is that 1D1F is a Government initiative that seeks to ensure that industrialisation is evenly spread as much as possible across the entire country.

To do this, we need to do two things; not only should we help new companies and new industrial activities to rise up in every corner of the country, we should also take steps to support existing industrial activities that need help. This is what we seek to achieve by this.

So the suggestion that these companies have existed and therefore, we should not consider them under the initiative is to misunderstand the policy. In fact, my advice to the Hon Member is that he should look around his own constituency, see those industries that are collapsing and indicate to Government that those industries need help.

If he applies, Government would take a close look at the suggestion he would make and see if those industries

could be accommodated in this policy so that the people of Ho can benefit, instead of arguing that those companies should be allowed to be distressed and perhaps to collapse. That would not serve the interest of the people of Ho.

I thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Hon Member for Ellembele?
Mr Emmanuel Armah-Kofi Buah (NDC -- Ellembele) 11:58 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity.
I thank the Finance Committee for this work.
Mr Speaker, it is important to ask the question of the objectives of the One District One Factory initiative. I think one of the core objectives of the One District One Factory was to speed up industrialisation and to create jobs and employment, making this very important. I looked at the company's own objective for trying to get Government to give Yedent tax waivers.
This is what the company is focusing on; the overall objective of the company is to consolidate its business with the World Food Programme and establish alternative distribution channels in its retail market segments. It goes on to say that the
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member for—
Mr Fuseini Issah 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, my Hon Friend on the other side asked a rhetorical question which I want to respond to. He asked whether—
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Hon Member, if you would want to contribute, I would give you the opportunity and then you could answer his rhetorical question. Otherwise, you must show that he has done or said something against the rules.
Mr Issah 11:58 a.m.
I take a cue from you, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Very well.
Yes, Hon Member, you may continue.
Mr Buah 11:58 a.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, I raised this question because we must be guided in going forward, to ensure that we are identifying companies that are aligned with the objectives of the One District One Factory Programme. The initial
promise was to really spare industrialisation, create jobs and see these companies coming up in every corner of this country.
Well, it has been redefined. We have accepted that we cannot go and create new factories. So let us go around and find old companies that we can help. That is what we are doing.
However, I am saying that having changed our story and gone for a company that has been established, in 2011, what we must do is to make sure we draw a balance so that in putting money in these companies, we still meet our objectives.
We are not going to use state resources to support companies that have been mismanaged and are dying and have no future in creating the jobs as we have expected. We have to be cautious in going forward.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Hon Member, are you suggesting that this company is dying and state resources are being used to revive it? Is there any such evidence that you would want to share with us? Otherwise, let us speak to the Report.
Mr Buah 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, if you look at the company's own objectives, it is clear that what we are going to do would help them to increase profitability, spare growth --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Does that mean it is dying?
Mr Buah 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, of course, if the company was doing well, it would not need the support of the Government. That is very clear to me.
Mr Speaker, the point I am making is a very important one. We should be guided in going forward so that we do not throw good money after bad. We must make sure that the objectives of these companies are aligned with ours.
We do not invest GH¢100 million for the company to tell us that they cannot create 100,000 jobs, the reason being that they did not say that and the job market cannot even guarantee that.
I think we must hold them to what they have promised to do, now that we are basically going to invest in existing companies around. This is because that was not the objective of the One District One Factory Programme.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Hon Chairman, I think it is sufficient. You have drawn our attention to the justification.
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, his debate is gradually --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Regrettably, they are taking the matters out of the Report and discussing other matters. Please, shall we keep to the Report?
Mr Buah 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am concluding. I think I have made my point.
The very important point we must note is that what we are doing here is giving stimulus packages to old companies to increase profitability. That is not what they promised in the original intention of the One District One Factory Programme. It is a good thing to give stimulus packages, but let us call a spade a spade.
Mr Speaker, I thank you.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:58 a.m.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Fuseini Issah (NPP -- Okaikoi North) 11:58 a.m.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to the Motion on the Floor.
Mr Speaker, what we are doing today is to give tax incentives to
companies that have been duly selected under the 1D1F Programme.
Mr Speaker, the objective of the 1D1F Programme is to rekindle our production base, create jobs and fix mostly import substitution products, so that we are able to produce what we eat and eat what we produce. This particular company, Yedent Group of Companies is taking advantage --
Mr Kpodo 12:08 p.m.
-- rose --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:08 p.m.
Hon Member, hold on.
Yes, what has he said that mandates your being on your feet?
Mr Kpodo 12:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, he said that companies that were selected -- we do not know of selection of companies. We know of establishment of companies.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:08 p.m.
Hon Member, go to the 1D1F Secretariat, all the reports are available over there. I have been dealing with them firmly on the Bekwai one, so if you do not know, find out.
Yes, Hon Member, you would go on.
Mr Issah 12:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I said that this company has been selected because we have had thousands of applications at the 1D1F Secretariat which is going through painstaking processes to come up with companies that they think are worthy of the support that they are giving. In this particular instance, Yedent Group of Companies went through the project appraisal process.
If we look at the variables in the Report, on paragraph 5.2, after we appraised this company, it came out with a net present value of GH¢129,499,916. It came out that there were an internal rate of return of 52 per cent, a profitability index of 9.55 and a discounted payback of 2.13 years.
This is a company which has proven to be profitable if all the projections that they did over the five years actually come through. So, this is not just any company that we are throwing good money after bad but we have actually done the project appraisal and it is shown to be profitable over a long term.
Yedent Agri Bulk Processing Company Limited is actually investing in a new processing line that would enable it take advantage of a ready market.
Mr James K. Avedzi (NPP -- Ketu North) 12:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I rise to also support the Motion that we grant this exemption. However, I have a few issues. The Hon Deputy Minister for Finance said that the exemption or supporting companies to benefit from this policy does not mean that existing or old companies should not benefit.

Mr Speaker, it is surprising that people now come to define what the promise was --
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:08 p.m.
Hon Leader, hold on.
Dr Afriyie 12:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, unfortunately, the Hon Leader is misleading the House. In the primary document of 1D1F, there was no attribution to the entity which would set up the factories. Indeed, from where we come from and from our orientation, we are the party of Danquah and Busia. We do not believe in governments owning businesses.
The business of Government is not to own business. We just support those who fall through the cracks and cannot participate and that is all. That is why it has been propagated all over the place that Government would set up factories. Far be it from it -- promoters would be looked at, so please, I want that to be captured.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:08 p.m.
Hon Members, can we keep to this Report? The Report is an application for tax exemption for a company -- [Interruption.]
Mr Avedzi 12:08 p.m.
Exactly, Mr Speaker. There is a basis for this exemption --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:08 p.m.
You are getting into a policy which is not before the House; I know for a fact that that is not what the policy is. I can give you a copy of the document if it becomes necessary -- the NPP document on 1D1F. It was clear that Government would support the private sector. So let us not bring that debate here. The application before us is for a company that has been recommended for tax waiver. Let us stick to that, please.
Mr Avedzi 12:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that you should not draw yourself into the debate. This is because you have just --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:08 p.m.
I am to guide the debate and my guide is that stick to the Report.
Mr Avedzi 12:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in guiding the debate, do not involve yourself in the debate. Mr Speaker, that is the rule we have in the House. When you sit there, you guide us but do not be part of the debate.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:08 p.m.
I guide you not to bring in matters which are not before the House and that is my firm ruling; stay within the Report.
Mr Avedzi 12:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, let me continue. Fair enough.
You can now define what you mean by one district, one factory but the
Mr Avedzi 12:18 p.m.
people of Ghana know what they were told and for that matter, your new definition would also advise them.
Mr Speaker, the issue about exemption -- even under the Ghana Investment Promotion Company (GIPC), there are companies that enjoy exemption of taxes already existing. Now, by this new thing, if a company is now exempted from paying taxes, it now qualifies as one district, one factory and for that matter, we are fulfilling our promises.
Well, that is an issue that can be debated further. The Hon Deputy Minister for Finance always says that they are reviewing the exemption policy. How long would it take for Government to review this exemption policy? But every day, exemptions are brought to this House for approval and that review would never be completed.
Mr Speaker, I think it would be good that the Minister comes to tell us that they have reviewed the exemption and there is a way to go.
If we are to go by the existing policy where companies are to benefit from exemption are granted, where the exemption is talking about six per cent of our GDP, and the position of the current Government is to reduce
this exemption issue. If he cannot complete the review for us to come out clearly and know what qualifies a person to enjoy the exemption in order to reduce the percentage, then let us forget about it.

Mr Speaker, then let us forget about it and go by the status quo, because it is something that they spoke against when they were in opposition, that when they come they would review it. It has been over two and a half years, and they have not finished that revision.

When are they going to finish the revision and bring it out so that we know clearly that this is the way to go, so that when they are bringing exemptions to this House we can look at it vis-à-vis their new policy and know what to do? Otherwise, let us forget about it -- what they said they would do, they would not be able to do it.

Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister also said that if they are not achieving their revenue target, then it is overambitious. This is an admission of failure. As an Hon Minister, he brought a revenue target to this House, which we approved, and now he is telling us that they are overambitious.

Mr Speaker, no. So, he knew from day one that he was setting an overambitious revenue target, and he came to defend it in this House and convinced Hon Members to approve those targets. It is as admission of failure. I do not expect the Hon Deputy Minister to do that.

He is the one who came out with the estimate and convinced Hon Members that they were going to achieve that target, which we approved, yet today, he is saying they have set an overambitious target?

So yes, we are going to approve this, because we have approved the policy. I said earlier that I supported this, but I asked the Hon Minister to speed up the review process, come out with the Report and let us know the path we are to take.

Mr Speaker, with these few words, I thank you for the opportunity.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:18 p.m.
Majority Leadership?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I would like to yield to the Hon Member for Asikuma/Odoben Brakwa.
Mr Anthony Effah (NPP -- Asikuma/Odoben/Brakwa) 12:18 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, we had a unanimous decision at the Committee on the request for waiver as presented to the House. This is in line with the May 3 approval and Resolution passed by the House.
The expansion programme of Yedent Group of Companies would actually be implemented in various phases, and it is important for us to know that once we support this waiver and assist the company to grow, we are going to have a lot of benefits.
There is first of all an expansion in the edible foods line, where production of processed foods would be available to humans and also support the World Food Programme export programme of the company. This is a valuable intervention by Yedent Group of Companies and we should support it.
Mr Speaker, also as part of the implementation of the expansion programme, Yedent Group of Companies intends to establish a poultry outgrower business.
What they intend to do under the scheme is to use their existing machinery and expanded machinery, to provide poultry feed to identified poultry farmers within the country, particularly in the Bono Region, and
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:18 p.m.
Item numbered 7, Resolution, by the Hon Minister for Finance.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister for Finance is engaged in some serious business, and the Hon Deputy Minister is here to undertake this assignment on his behalf.
RESOLUTIONS 12:18 p.m.
THIS HONOURABLE HOUSE 12:18 p.m.
IS RSPECTFULLY REQUESTED 12:18 p.m.
TO ADOPT THE FOLLOWING 12:18 p.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah) 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
Question put and Motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, item numbered 8.
Suspension of Standing Order 80 (1)
Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah) 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 80(1) which require that no Motion shall be debated until at least forty-eight hours have elapsed between the date on which notice of the Motion is given and the date on which the Motion is moved, the Motion for the adoption of the Report of the Finance Committee on the request for waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, GETFund Levy, Import NHIL, EXIM Levy, and other imposts amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of fifteen thousand, seven hundred and thirty-seven euros (€15,737.00)[equivalent to GH¢92, 579.00] on equipment to be procured by RePATRN Limited under the implementation of the One District One Factory (1D1F) Pro- gramme may be moved today.
Mr John Abdulai Jinapor 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
Question put and Motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:18 p.m.
Item numbered 9, Chairman of the Committee?
MOTIONS 12:18 p.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah) 12:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that this Honourable House adopts the Report of the Finance Committee on the Request for waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, GETFund Levy, Import NHIL, EXIM Levy, and other imposts amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of fifteen thousand, seven hundred and thirty-seven euros (€15,737.00) [equivalent to GH¢92, 579.00] on equipment to be procured by RePATRN Limited under the implementation of the One District One Factory (1D1F) Pro- gramme.
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, per our Resolution of May, 2019 all of these requests, however small, would have to come to the House.
1.0 Introduction The request for the Waiver of
Import Duties, Import VAT, GETFund Levy, Import NHIL, EXIM Levy and other imposts amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of fifteen thousand, seven hundred and thirty-seven euros (€15,737.00) (Equivalent to Gh¢92,579.00) on equipment to be procured by RePATRN Limited under the implementation of the One District One Factory (1D1F) Programme was laid in the House on Tuesday, 9th July, 2019 in accordance with Article 174(2) of the Constitution, and referred to the Finance Committee for consideration and report, pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House.
The Committee met with a Deputy Minister for Finance Hon. Kwaku Kwarteng and technical teams from the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Trade and Industry, 1D1F Secretariat and the Ghana Revenue Authority to consider the request.
2.0 Documents referred to
The Committee referred to the following documents during its deliberations:
The 1992 Constitution of Ghana;
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:28 p.m.
I ignored him; but you have drawn my attention to him.
Mr Jinapor 12:28 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker. He was shouting at me.
Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member drew the House's attention to the 2019 Budget but he read only the first sentence. I would like to continue. He knows the Chairman has access to the Budget.
“The initiative is Private Sector- led whilst the Government plays a facilitation role including providing technical assistance…”
Mr Speaker, nowhere has it been said that the Government of H. E. Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo will set up factories -- [Interruption.] Yes, it is not in our DNA. It is the Danquah-Busia Tradition; we believe in private sector- led economic growth. As a matter of fact, if he comes to my constituency and tells me that I should set up a factory, I will sack him; that is not our business.
It is for the private sector to take the lead. We will only create the enabling environment. It is our policy and we explained it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:28 p.m.
Hon Chairman, you have made your point.
Yes, Hon Member?
Mr Jinapor 12:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Chairman completely misunderstood me and he has misrepresented my statement. I said that the Hon Minister for Finance was categorical and I beg to repeat what he said:
“Mr Speaker, the One District One Factory (1D1F) Initiative aims at establishing at least one factory…”
Mr Jinapor 12:28 p.m.
Those are the operative words -- [Interruption.] -- across the country. The Chairman has continued. What he said does not support the establishment of one factory. What they said today is not aimed at the establishment of 1D1F. So if there is a policy inconsistency and if there is any issue to deal with, it is the Chairman's statement that is inconsistent.

Mr Speaker, the way the Hon Chairman is shouting at me is most unfortunate. On this note, I think you would have to protect me.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:28 p.m.
Hon Member, you have the Floor, I am listening to you; address me.
Mr Jinapor 12:28 p.m.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
The people of Ghana are watching and they know what was said and what has been delivered. Clearly, the President Akufo-Addo led Government has failed to honour its promise and is only taking former President Mahama's projects to rebrand.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:28 p.m.
Hon Deputy Minister, would you want to contribute and at the end provide information? Which one do you want? Do you want to wait and have the last one or you will contribute now?
Mr K.A. Kwarteng 12:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I will contribute.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:28 p.m.
Very well. Then you have the Floor.
Mr K. A. Kwarteng 12:38 p.m.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I am grateful to the Chairman of the Committee on Finance for drawing our attention to exactly what was said in paragraph 568 of the 2019 Budget Statement.
Mr Speaker, as has been indicated, Government's real intention is to create the environment for private sector people to help advance this policy. There is nothing wrong if the word ‘established' is used. The objective is that every district must have a factory.
If there are districts with existing factories that want to expand, and we say that because of paragraph 568, Government should not be allowed to do that, then it becomes very hard for us to understand the logic of what you are saying.

Mr Speaker, I however take advantage of this to indicate that earlier this year, Government laid in this House the Exemptions Bill, 2019. This Bill came out of the review such that the Hon Member said it has not been done. He called on Government to ask, if the review had been abandoned.

I would advise that he pays attention to what goes on in the Chamber. The Bill is with the Finance Committee and I understand that they are inviting the views of people, so that they could contribute to the quality of the Bill. My suggestion is that we should not make statements that would not support the good work that this House does.

If a Bill has been laid here, it is wrong for any Hon Member of Parliament, who is part of this Parliament, to suggest that a review

was promised, and has never been here, when indeed, that person is a victim of his own ignorance.

Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Question put and Motion agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to item numbered 10 -- Resolution.
Yes, Hon Deputy Minister for Finance?
RESOLUTIONS 12:38 p.m.
THIS HONOURABLE HOUSE IS 12:38 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED TO 12:38 p.m.
ADOPT THE FOLLOWING RE- 12:38 p.m.
BY THE COMBINED 12:38 p.m.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
Hon Members, where is the Hon Chairman of the Committee?
If nobody is seconding --
Mr Jinapor 12:38 p.m.
-- rose --
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
Hon Member for Wapei? -- (Note Yapei)
Mr Jinapor 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am one of your favourites in this Chamber, so you must know my constituency. [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker, my constituency is Yapei/Kusawgu.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
I would have to pronounce it so many times for it to stick.
Mr Jinapor 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
Thank you.
Question put and Motion agreed to.
Resolved accordingly.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
Yes, Hon available Leader?
Mr Kankam 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we could take the item numbered 12 on today's Order Paper.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
Hon Member, we have finished with item numbered 4.

Hon Member, did you say item numbered 12? I heard item numbered

4.
Mr Kankam 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is item numbered 12, on page 7 of today's Order Paper.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
All right.
Hon Members, we would take the University of Technology and Applied Sciences Bill, 2018, at the Consideration Stage.
Mr Avedzi 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I wanted to draw your attention to the absence of the Hon Chairman of the Committee, but he just entered. I do not know how he managed to know that we are moving on to item numbered 12.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
At the pre-Sitting meeting, something was agreed upon among the Leaders. Hon Deputy Minority Leader, you were not there, and the Hon available Majority Leader was also not there.
I do not know whether it is up to me to announce what the Leaders agreed upon. The Hon Majority Leader and Hon Minority Leader are not here, but they agreed on something, in view of the election processes related to the Minority.
Mr Avedzi 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, once it was an agreement between the two Sides, you could go ahead and announce it to us.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
The Hon Majority Leader has not left. Has he?
Very well, we would wait. But in the meantime, we could start with the Consideration of the University of Technology and Applied Sciences Bill, 2018.
BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 12:38 p.m.
STAGE 12:38 p.m.
Chairman of the Committee (Mr William Agyapong Quaitoo) 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, subclause 1, redraft as follows:
“There is established by this Act the University of Technology and Applied Sciences as a body corporate with perpetual succession”.
Mr Speaker, this is the new rendition that has been adopted by the House for the few Bills that we have looked at in the past. We therefore thought that it should also be changed to fit into the new rendition.
Mr Shaibu Mahama 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Chairman on the proposed amendment, except to say that he failed to credit the Hon Yieleh Chireh for that.
Mr Speaker, I support the proposed amendment.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to item numbered (ii), by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Mr Quaitoo 12:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, subclause (2), line 2, delete “movable or immovable”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 12:38 p.m.
“For the performance of the functions of the University, the University may acquire and hold property, dispose of property and enter into any other contract or any other related tran- saction.”
Mr Speaker, the reason here is that the word “property”, more or less, also covers properties that are movable and immovable.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:38 p.m.
Hon Members, we would move on to item numbered (iii), by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
Mr Quaitoo 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, subclause 3, line 1, delete “property” and insert “land” and in line 2, delete “immovable property” and insert “land”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 12:48 p.m.
“Where there is a hindrance to the acquisition of land, the land may be acquired for the University under the State Lands Acts, 1962 (Act 125) and the cost shall be borne by the University.”
Mr Speaker, I would like us to check something here too — ‘‘the cost”, not “cause”; “the cost shall be borne by the university”. So, we should look at, “cause” there, and change it.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
That is a further amendment proposed— — delete “cause” and insert “cost”.
Mr Mahama Shaibu 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in support of that, just to proffer a further explanation that the State Lands Act, 1962 (Act 125) talks about land and not property. That is the reason we are changing it from “property” to “land”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 1 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 -- Aims of the University
Mr Quaittoo 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, subclause 1, paragraph (b), line 3, delete “North- Eastern” and insert “north-eastern”.
Mr Speaker, the difference here is that the first “Northern- E a s t e r n ” starts with capital letters, but the one we are inserting starts with small letters.
Mr Speaker, the reason is that we now have North-Eastern Region, and we may think it is specifically to that Region. Here, we refer to the north- eastern part of the whole northern part of Ghana.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Item numbered 12(v), Hon Chairman of the Committee?
Mr Quaittoo 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2 subclause 2, opening phrase, and line 1, delete “its aims under” and insert “the aims of”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Item numbered 12 (vi), Hon Chairman of Committee?
Mr Quaittoo 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 2, subclause (2), paragraph (e), line 2, delete “centres and institutes” and insert “faculties, institutes and centres”.
Mr Speaker, the reason is that, of course, already they have faculties and institutes but there may be centres also established.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Very well.
Question put and Amendment agreed to.
rose
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Ho Central?
Mr Kpodo 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I suggest to the Hon Chairman of the Committee to add “colleges” to “faculties, institutes and centres”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Hon Member, are you referring to item numbered 12 (vi)?
Mr Kpodo 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, clause 2, item numbered (12)vi.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Yes, subclause 2 paragraph (e).
Mr Kpodo 12:48 p.m.
Yes, to insert “colleges”. I proposed we add “colleges”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Yes, it is proposed that we should add “colleges”. -- [Pause.]
Well, Hon Member, you have not explained why we should add “colleges”.
Mr Kpodo 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in the re-organisation of even the existing universities, they now run on a collegiate system. It would be likely done in the future. So if we put it in the law, it then strengthens the hand of the management of the university to do it. Otherwise, they would have to come to Parliament for an amendment in order to insert “colleges”.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minister of State in charge of
Tertiary Education, what is your view on that—college of engineering or college of arts, are they substitutes for faculties?
Prof Yankah 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not see colleges within the current arrangement in this particular university.
Mr Emmanuel Kwesi Bedzrah 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, maybe, if the Hon Minister could explain to us the difference between schools and colleges. We would like to have understanding between the schools and colleges, so that we could pass
—
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Yes, Hon Minister, share something.
Prof Yankah 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, colleges are higher units to which schools and faculties may belong.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Yes, I do not know but what I understand colleges to be is that sometimes, they are independent institutes operating under the university elsewhere; am I right?
Yes, Hon Member for Ho Central?
Mr Kpodo 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I recall that there were so many faculties, departments and institutes within the
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Yes, Professor—
Prof. Yankah 12:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Member on this for us to leave room for growth and dynamics within the respective universities. Even though there may not be “colleges” at the moment, it makes room for foresight.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:48 p.m.
Very well. The proposed amendment is to add “colleges” to clause 2, subclause 2(e).
The Hon Second Deputy Speaker would take the Chair.
MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:57 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that in essence, the amendment proffered makes considerable sense except that if we are not careful, these colleges then, could be used to introduce new courses that may not be relevant.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:57 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, you would have to go over your submission again.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 12:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, I did not know that there was a baton-change going on.
Even though in principle the amendment proffered makes a lot of
sense, but here we are determining that henceforth, the reason for establishing universities should be at the centre of any progress, subsequently, that may occur at the university.

We want to restrict the universities to the various principles and policies that underpin their establishment. Once they are granted that freedom to establish their own colleges, the temptation would be for them to depart from the core activities of the university.

Mr Speaker, it is the reason we have a university established for the pursuance of education in science and technology in Ghana, which ended up establishing a College of Arts.

We should be careful. Increasingly, we are telling ourselves that no, we should restrict the universities to the various core functions for which they were created. In establishing the University of Allied Sciences and the new one at Koforidua, we insisted. We should be careful in this enterprise.
Mr Bedzrah 12:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I totally agree with the Hon Majority Leader that if we are not careful and add “colleges” to it, the institution
would decide to add more courses that would defeat the purpose of establishing this particular university. We have established a lot of universities in this House and therefore we should be mindful that the courses we agreed on should be maintained. So we could leave it as it is in the original Bill.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:58 p.m.
Hon Minister, what is the policy position on this matter?
Prof Yankah 12:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, for the sake of consistency with what obtained in what we dealt with yesterday, I suggest we refer to the case of Wa where “college” was not added. In principle, I agree with leaving room for growth and dynamics; but whichever position we take has to be consistent with all the other recent university Bills that have been considered.
Dr Marfo 12:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I do not see any problem when we make room for growth. The fact that we want to add ‘'colleges'' does not necessarily mean that new courses would be introduced. The Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology used to have faculties.
At a point in time, because it grew, it decided to put the faculties that run sister programmes together to form
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:58 p.m.
We are doing this because of the experience that we have had. How do we prevent people from going beyond the mandate of the universities? There is a lack of specialisation.
With the addition of “college'', it would rather give room for others not to do what we are talking about -- creating colleges on their mandate or going beyond that to add other areas.
Now, almost every university has a law faculty, and they create so many things. So we are not specialised, as a country and we are spreading and
not focusing on the core mandate of the universities. How to prevent that is the concerns that have been raised.
Mr Kpodo 12:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, any new course that would be introduced has to receive the approval of the Academic Board. There is one Academic Board to which all the colleges, faculties, departments or centres would report.
If the university management would implement what the law says the university should do, I do not think that any college created out of the faculties, which would exist, would just by its own decide to add or take away courses that the university has been established to run.
The fact that a college has been established does not mean there should be a breakaway. Taking a cue from the University of Education, Winneba (UEW), it would be realised that these colleges have existed for so many years and none has broken away.
The central point where all the faculties and departments would report to is the Academic Board, so nobody could do anything outside the Board's authority. With this, we could miss the point if we do not include “colleges'', which would give
opportunity to the management to restructure the administration of the institution.
Mr Bedzrah 12:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister in charge of Tertiary Education said that for policy consistency, we should have whatever we agreed on yesterday. Yesterday, we did not add ‘‘colleges'' to it. So, if we did not add “colleges'' to the one we passed at the Wa campus, why should we add “college'' to this current one?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:58 p.m.
The Hon Minister just cited one instance, so you cannot talk about consistency in this matter. If you want us to follow that one - but if on hindsight we think that there was an oversight and we need to add to it, there is nothing wrong with it.
I definitely want the universities to take the debate that is going on into consideration when they want to implement the law. We have raised concern about the duplication of various colleges and faculties in the universities all over.
That is the concern that has been raised, and we would take on board whether we decide to add “colleges”, but it is important for us to get the sense that we are moving from centres
to institutes, faculties and colleges. I believe that is the order that they would want us to go.
Hon Chairman of the Committee, is that the situation?
Mr Quaittoo 12:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yesterday, what the Hon Minister talked about was on the presentation of the Report of the Wa University. We were conscious about the fact that we did not want to create any new courses that are outside the defined courses for the university.
Mr Speaker, if we want to add more examples as to why we did not add “colleges”, when we dealt with the University of Health and Allied Sciences and the University of Professional Studies Bills, we did not add “colleges”. But I do not see anything wrong with what Hon Kpodo said.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:58 p.m.
So, do we follow the principle of consistency?
Mr Quaittoo 12:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we follow the principle of consistency, then “colleges” should not be added.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 12:58 p.m.
We want to add what is right and best in the situation.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:08 p.m.


Hon Minister, will the addition of “colleges” be an improvement, or it will not change anything?
Prof Yankah 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we could cure all these uncertainties by just saying, “and any other relevant academic units”, thereby avoiding. “colleges” but leaving room for any eventuality at the same time. This is a very neutral label that we find in several statutes.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:08 p.m.
Hon Minister, that would bring a different phrase in the whole clause and interpretation could create more problems than “colleges”.
Let me listen to Hon Members; yes?
Mr Shaibu Mahama 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, that would even be worse. If we say, “any other relevant academic units” --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:08 p.m.
Well, there is nothing bad here for us to move into worse. [Laughter.]
Mr Shaibu Mahama 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I take a cue.
The new proposed rendition by Prof Yankah would seem to widen the scope. What we are trying to cure is for the universities not to go beyond their mandate. We are running away from a situation where KNUST now runs programmes in law, social sciences, et cetera.
Indeed, a greater percentage of students are now with other programmes other than the reasons for which the university was established. That is what we want to cure. So we should be specific as to the mandate that we assign to this.
Mr Speaker, the reason I tend to disagree with Prof Yankah is that, “any other relevant academic units”, but the universities could go beyond just interpreting the units to create additional things that are beyond the mandate originally given.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:08 p.m.
Hon Members, so, let us go for consistency and end the whole debate.
Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
Mr Quaittoo 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, even that, if we read clause 2(2) (e) in whole, it defines the schools and faculties and then adds, “any other integrated technology and applied
sciences related schools, centres and institutes”. This is where Hon Kpodo asked us to include “colleges”. So, “any other” has already been mentioned, but it should be related to the core mandate of the university. We cannot create any new unit.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:08 p.m.
Hon Member, but “any other” deals with “integrated technology and applied sciences”. So it deals with the core mandate.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, first of all, the Hon Chairman of the Committee would want us to believe that the use of “related” relates to “integrated”. It does not. It just says, “any other integrated technology and applied sciences-related schools”.
The “related”, as read, belongs to “applied sciences” but I understand what he wants to say. I think that he wants to put forth “any other relevant integrated technology and applied sciences-related schools”.
Mr Speaker, if we decide to include “colleges” and introduce it for the first time in this Bill, we could then have some other phrase to capture the sense that, notwithstanding that, all the courses should be related to the core functions of the university as defined in clause 2(1). That could be the cure.
Mr Speaker, but if we want to be consistent, let us leave it out. If it becomes necessary to add it within that frame and we would have to amend the law, why not. For the time being, let us not give them the muscle to rush to do other things than their own core mandate.
Mr Speaker, many of these universities find the social sciences much more profitable. It attracts students, so they divert their attention to the social sciences and the mandate of the university is abandoned.
Maybe, they would have some structure to accommodate a few students; but because they would make money in other areas, they drift to those areas and neglect the core functions, which is to concentrate on the health, environmental and life sciences; school of physical and biosciences; school of engineering; and school of medicine, which are core science-related courses.
Mr Speaker, if we talk about the profitability of the university, the Vice Chancellor would look at those areas that would give him money if he wants to develop the school. He would then say that the school is developing and he is building classrooms; yet, they would have drifted away from the core mandate. We do not want that.
Mr Nortsu-Kotoe 1:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is a new trend in some of our universities, where they put a number of faculties together to form a college. For instance, the College of Education at the University of Ghana has a number of faculties. It is the same when we go to the College of Agriculture.
Mr Speaker, but in this case, we are establishing a new university. If we give them that open portmanteau, they may be in a hurry to transform these schools into colleges and may not meet some of the standards that would be needed or may be neces- sary for the establishment of these colleges.
That was why when we debated the Motion for the adoption of the Report the other day, I said that we may have to look at even the award of honorary degrees as a nation, and see what stage a university should reach before it awards such degrees.
Mr Speaker, so in the meantime, although the idea of college is fine, I would prefer that we restrict them to schools and centres as it is in the Bill now.
In the future, when there is the need for the university to establish colleges, they could come back for amendment and that would not take a very long time.
Mr Speaker, the idea is very futuristic; it is good, but let us for the time being restrict them to schools and centres.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:18 p.m.
Hon Members, let us be a bit careful with the use of words. I have seen some of the Acts they have brought to me. They used “schools”; there was nothing like “colleges”. Now, we are trying to add “college”.
So, the law establishing some of the universities used “schools, institutes and centres”. There was no “college”. This one would add “college” to the “schools, institutes and centres”.
What would be the intent of legislators that they would give an opportunity to do something in addition to what has been offered to the others? That is an issue we would have to consider.
Mr Kpodo 1:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am worried about the attributions made to what a college can do. A college is only to bring similar faculties together
under a particular administration, which is the college administration.
Mr Speaker, it is an administrative arrangement where we have decentralised management of the institution. The practical thing today is that the universities are establishing colleges. So, are we encouraging them to do it outside the law?
Mr Speaker, you know how difficult it is to bring an amendment to this House. The Public Procurement
-- 1:18 p.m.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:18 p.m.
Please, Hon Member, do the establishment of the colleges in any way add value, quality or whatever to the universities?
Mr Kpodo 1:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, exactly. Yes, it adds to the administrative setup of the University, so that the college is left with major decisions regarding what they could do within a particular area of study.
So I do not see how it would encourage the University to move away from its core mandate. In any case, they do it as we used to have Schools of Management and Administration, and they have moved on to other establishments.
Mr Speaker, so I think that we are just creating the avenue for the university that any time they reached a point where they need to put a number of faculties together into a college, they do not have to come to Parliament.
It does not mean that tomorrow, after the Third Reading, they should go and establish a college, but we are creating the opportunity for them to do so without coming to Parliament for an amendment to the law.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:18 p.m.
I have the University of Environment and Sustainable Development Act, 2015 and the University of Health and Allied Sciences Act, 2011, and there is no mention of colleges in any of those laws.
Hon Member, your argument that it adds value is what I have not heard anybody argue against. This is because we are looking for quality. If it is true that the creation of the colleges adds some value to the universities in order of the mandate that they have been given, it is something that we can consider. But if it is just a matter of administrative setup and they are doing it without any law, then what they are doing is unlawful.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:18 p.m.
I will now put the Question on the proposed amendment from the Committee, which has been moved by the Hon Chairman.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that for the avoidance of doubt, in subclause (e), line 1 we could insert “relevant” between “other” and “integrated”.
So, we shall have:
“any other relevant integrated technology and applied sciences-related schools, institutes and centres as the Council may determine”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:18 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, is there any doubt in what we already have there? If you talk about “any other integrated technology”, are you saying that they could put “any other irrelevant integrated technology and applied sciences-related schools…?”
I think that it is definitely clear.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, respectfully, you may refer to Acts that you have before you. In the closing clause, how have we formulated them? I think that in the establishment of the schools, we have related to the core mandate of the schools. I should think that we have “relevant” there.
In clause 2(e), line 1, we have “…applied sciences-related schools,…”
It does not really qualify “integrated technology”, and that is why I introduced that word; but if you think that it sufficiently qualifies the entire subclause, I would not want to further litigate it.
Mr Speaker, if you look at the Acts that you have before you, you may help us structure clause 2(e) better.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:18 p.m.
Well, the reason you are raising this is because of this dash between “sciences” and “related”, which is only attaching it to only the “applied sciences”; but if that is removed, it will be for the whole thing because the university is for Technology and Applied Sciences.
Hon Chairman, what do you say to that?
Mr Quaittoo 1:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is how I understand it, but he said otherwise. This is because it is the University of Integrated Technology and Applied Sciences. So, if we put “related” there, it affects the --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:18 p.m.
It is not “Integrated Technology”, but the whole of “Technology and Applied Sciences”. So the two should go together; but you know that the way it is captured now, it only applies to the “applied sciences”.
If that is removed -- we are lucky to have an English expert with us in the person of the Hon Minister for Tertiary Education. This one is complete language and construction.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that it should rather read:
“…any other relevant integrated technology and applied sciences schools, institutes and centres as the Council may determine”.
However, I guess with the principle understood, we could leave it to the draftpersons.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:28 p.m.
That is how it should be. So we will delete “related” and insert “relevant” between “other” and “integrated”.
So, it will now read:
“any other relevant integrated technology and applied sciences, schools, institutes and centres…”
I would put the Question on the new rendition to insert “relevant” after “other” and to delete “related”.
Mr Quaittoo 1:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I guess we should also mention that the hyphen should go with the “related”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:28 p.m.
The hyphen would no longer be there because once the “related” has been
Mr Quaittoo 1:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 3 -- delete and insert the following:
“The University is established in Navrongo with campuses in any other place that the Council may determine.”
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 -- Award of Degrees
Mr Quaittoo 1:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4 subclause (1), line (2), delete “including”.
So the new rendition would read: “The University shall in accordance with subclause 8 of clause 14 award degrees, honorary degrees, diplomas and certificates.”
Mr Bedzrah 1:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman has just moved an amendment without any explanation and so, if he could tell us why we should carry out that amendment.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:28 p.m.
Hon Chairman, are honorary degrees part of degrees?
Mr Quaittoo 1:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, they are part of degrees and so putting “including” there would make it superfluous and that is why we want it to be deleted.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:28 p.m.
So, why do we have to leave the “honorary degrees” if we are deleting “including”? Because when we delete “including” then we are establishing it as one of the degrees that could be awarded by separating it from the degrees as we have the “diplomas” and “certificates” standing on their own.
I think the attempt is to ensure that the degrees would include “honorary degrees” and that is why we have the word “including”. So, if we delete “including”, then it would go with
“honorary degrees” once we accept that they are also degrees, if not, “including” is relevant.
Mr Shaibu Mahama 1:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the reason we want to delete “including” is to also qualify the “diplomas” and “certificates”. If “including” sits in there, then it would mean that certificates and diplomas are also considered as degrees and this is not the case; therefore there is the need to delete “including”.
So degrees would stand alone as well as honorary degrees, diplomas and certificates. It is safe if we want to take off the “honorary degrees”, but once the word “including” comes before “diplomas” and “certificates” then it would purport to qualify both certificates and diplomas.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:28 p.m.
I do not get the sense.
Hon Chairman?
Mr Quaittoo 1:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, where the “including” has been placed would appear that it is also affecting “diplomas” and “certificates” and so if we take it out --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:28 p.m.
That is what the Hon Member just articulated and I said that I am not of the same understanding because diplomas and certificates are not degrees. So “including” could not refer to diplomas and certificates as degrees.
Mr Nortsu-Kotoe 1:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we asked for the deletion of “including” for two reasons and one is what the Hon Chairman has said, but more importantly, we want to distinguish between the degrees and honorary degrees.
This was the main reason so that “degrees” would stand on its own as well as “honorary degrees”. We want to distinguish between the two of them - this was the major reason for the deletion of “including”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:28 p.m.
In the earlier laws, there was no deletion of “including”. If you go through the University of Health and Allied Sciences Act you would see it there. It states that :
“Without limiting its other powers, the University shall have power to award its own degrees including honorary degrees, diplomas and cer- tificates”.
Dr Kwaku Afriyie 1:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that the underlying factor is that we know what honorary degrees are; they are cosmetic. So a new rendition would bring clarity to this.
I would suggest that we say “The University shall in accordance with subclause 8 of clause 14 award degrees, diplomas and certificates including honorary degrees.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
Hon Minister, this would not be elegant at all because if you talk about degrees, you should finish with that subject matter before you move to the others like diplomas and certificates.
Dr K. Afriyie 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the underlying factor is that we all accept that degrees, diplomas and certificates are substantive awards, but an honorary degree is what it is. It is rather cosmetic. So in my mind, I believe that the “honorary degree” should appear separately from the other three entities. How we craft it would bring clarity. That is why I suggested that, but I take cognisance of the fact that it makes it a bit awkward.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
I do not accept your word “cosmetic” for honorary degrees. It is an acknowledgment of society of experiential learning. It is not cosmetic at all.
Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs?
Mr Banda 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if I get the sense of the House correctly, from what you have said, diplomas and certificates are not degrees.
In order to deal with the issue, I would want to propose that we should rather bring diplomas and certificates first so that it would read:
“(1) The University shall, in accordance with subsection (8) of the section 14, award certificates, diplomas and degrees including honorary degrees.”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
Well. That is the sequential flow. Unfortunately, in the earlier laws we have passed, this idea did not come up. We started from the top to the bottom throughout all the laws we have passed.
Mr Nortsu-Kotoe 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what I wanted to say is exactly what you have just said, that it was a matter of ascendancy so we start from the highest rank to the lowest. So his suggestion would not work.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
This time around, nobody would argue about consistency. Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree that we are dealing with clarity and not consistency. So the natural flow, if we would want to put the matter beyond doubt, begins from the grassroots and ascend to the higher echelon so that if we said that the University shall, in accordance with subsection (8) of the section 14, award certificates, diplomas and degrees including honorary degrees, it would be the natural flow.
I agree that hitherto, we had always begun from the top and descended, but that is not giving us the clarity. In this case, it might be misconstrued to mean that diplomas and even certificates are degrees, but we all know they are not.
To just bring greater clarity, let us do it the other way round as suggested by the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
Now the principle of ascendency is being used. That means when you say degrees, including honorary degrees, the name would be above degrees. But it is good to use the bottom-up approach.
So I would put the Question on this new rendition.
Mr Chireh 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, you made a point, and I thought I should advance it a little, which is; we should say:
“may award certificates, diplomas, degrees and honorary degrees” and not “may award certificates, diplomas, degrees including honorary degrees”.
This is because, we are not including anything in any other things. It is just that it stands alone. If we even would want to go according to ascendency, the honorary degree should come before the degrees because that one is of lower value than the real degree.
So I would further propose an amendment that:
“(1) The University shall, in accordance with subsection
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
That does not look elegant. I think “degrees and honorary degrees” is preferable. You have added value to the proposed amendment, but the way you have now recapitulated it is what has made it --
So Hon Members, the proposed amendment is as follows that Clause 4, subclause 1 is being amended to read:
“(1) The University shall, in accordance with subsection (8) of the section 14, award certificates, diplomas, degrees and honorary degrees.”
Dr Emmanuel Marfo 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, so we are replacing “including” with “and”?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
Yes. That is why I read it that way.
Mr Quaittoo 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in that case, we could have left it as you proposed in the first place:
“award degrees, honorary degrees and diplomas and certificates.”
It is the same thing. We have repeated this by just --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
No. They said that we should start from the crèche before you go to kindergarten, nursery, primary, junior high school, senior high school before you go to university. So we are doing the same thing; the bottom-up approach. That is the new approach now.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the mischief we wanted to kill was the retention of, “including”. That is why we invented it. So now that we have deleted “including” and inserted “and”, it would read “award degrees, honorary degrees and diplomas and certificates”, that could also be right because of the deletion of “including”.
It was to cure that mischief that we did that invention. So if we have now deleted it, we could then still have the old arrangement.
But, Mr Speaker, it lies with us, whichever way we would want to go.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
If you still want us to maintain the top- bottom approach, we would go with that. I thought there has been a change of mind.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:38 p.m.
It was to cure the use of the word “including”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
Yes, Hon Chairman, are we still maintaining the order as it is?
Mr Quaittoo 1:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, let us maintain the order as it is because even if we go to the next clause, it is presented the same way; it starts from the top. So if we amend it here, in the next clause we also have to amend the whole thing.
However, what we have done now is consistent with the former Acts of other universities that we have passed.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
So, it would be “degrees, honorary degrees, diplomas and certificates”. Is that accepted?
Mr Quaittoo 1:38 p.m.
Yes.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:38 p.m.
So I would put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
So Table Office, what has finally been decided by the House is that the subclause should read:
“The University shall, in accordance with subsection (8) of section 14, award a degree honorary degrees, diplomas and certificates.”
Hon Chairman, we still have more proposed amendments to clause 4.
After the long debate, we finally agreed with the Chairman as he initially proposed.
Chairman, the Committee did a good job.
Mr Quaittoo 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4 subclause 2, opening phrase, line 1, after “degree” insert “honorary degree”.
Mr Speaker, it would read 1:48 p.m.
“The University may withdraw a degree, honorary degree, diploma or certificate the University has awarded, if the University has evidence that proves that …”
Mr Quaittoo 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4 -- subclasue 2, paragraph (a) line 1, after “degree” insert “honorary degree”.
Mr Quaittoo 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 4 subclausse 2, paragraph (b), line, 1 after “degree” insert “honorary degree”.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just a little observation -- We have been struggling with the use of the words, “if” and “where”. In this context, which one is more appro- priate? “… where the University has evidence that proves that the degree, honorary degree, diploma or certificate was obtained through fraud, academic malpractice; or …”
Mr Speaker, is it “where” or “if” in this context. I thought that we should have “where” in this context.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
Let me put the Question on this one first, then we can take this proposed amendment from the Hon Majority Leader.
Mr Shaibu Mahama 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, there is also confusion about “a” and “an”. If we look at clause 4(2): “The University may withdraw a degree, …” but if we are inserting “honorary degree”, should “a” apply to it or “an” and in which case, “a” applies to degree, diploma and certificate but we are inserting “an honorary degree” Does “a” apply to it or we should introduce “an”?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
Hon Member, “a” refers to the “degree”, not “honorary degree”.
You are also moving something different. Let me put the Question first then we could move on to the others.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
Now, the Hon Majority Leader has drawn our attention to the word, “if” in line 2 of subclause 2 and he has raised the issue whether we prefer “if” or “where”. Usually, I would always go for “where”. This is beca(Amenduse “if” as we know, deals with condition.
Mr Chireh 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in this case, “if” is appropriate because we are saying that the University may withdraw if -- In drafting, we can start a complete sentence with “where” or when it is a clause and we
want to say, “Where this is appropriate …” but in this context, we are talking about a conditional situation so “if” is more appropriate than “where”.
Of course, they are inter- changeable but if we do not use “where” within a clause like this -- It is when we are starting with a clause or when we are giving condition precedence but in this case, it is following a condition, so I think the draftperson's proposition --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
Hon Member, you see how you are struggling to put it across? [Laughter.]
Mr Chireh 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is better now.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
The University must have evidence first to give mandate to the University to be withdrawing. So it should not have been “if” again. “If” gives uncertainty but we are talking about the fact that they are sure that they have evidence. So it should be “where” not “if” but we would listen to you because you went for the course. I did not go for it.
Mr Chireh 1:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the point I am making is that this “if” here is a condition. “Where” does not
make it evidence that they have. If the university has evidence -- If we put it as “Where the University has evidence” -- Either of them is correct but because of the conditional term “if” -- in drafting, both can be used but it is more appropriate where a whole clause is started. In this one, it is when this -- if the evidence is there, then it must be withdrawn.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:48 p.m.
Well, you are a student of drafting so you are not yet an expert. Let me listen to the Hon Majority Leader too.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think there is some difference here and these draftpersons occasionally confuse all of us.
This is because they themselves are not consistent.
Mr Speaker, we are predicating the withdrawal of a degree, diploma or certificate -- in a situation where a university has evidence that a degree, diploma or certificate was obtained through fraud or academic malpractice, that is what they are saying, and that is why I cannot appreciate the point being made by my Hon Colleague when he says that “if”, where it does not obtain here.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
Sorry, Hon Majority Leader.
In view of the business before the House I direct that business be held outside the prescribed period.
You may continue.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have been saying that these guys who underwent this drafting exercise have not been consistent at all in their advice to this House. Sometimes they insist that it should be “where”, and then sometimes they change course, and when they change reasoning they want the House to go with them. They cannot be inconsistent.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
The use of the word “if” means you are not certain. When you say “where”, you are. You have the evidence.
Mr Chireh 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to say that it does not change the meaning. Let us go ahead, but we
have drafted past laws using the “if”. If we now change this to “where”, in everything, people would say “where” instead of “if” as if we have banned the use of “if” in legislation. That is my worry.
It does not change any meaning. Both of them are still conditional. It is not as if the evidence is there. If the evidence exists, that is all.
This English logician is changing grammar, and grammar is not drafting. The meaning is the same, so I do not mind.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
Now you are applying different tactics.
Dr Kwaku Afriyie 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, actually, we are splitting hairs. You see, it is the “if” which leads to the “where”. “If” is a condition. It is a filter, so you pass the process through the “if” and then you find yourself in a situation “where”. It means the “where” is conclusive, but it is “if” which you apply that can lead you to the “where”.
So actually, the two are consequential. At the “where” stage, you can draw a conclusion, so in some sense, Hon Yieleh Chireh is correct, and then of course the definite conclusion is where you are
very definite, so in that sense too the Hon Majority Leader is also correct.
That is why we must decide on a simple thing, whether we are using “if” or “where”, and then move on.
Mr Quaittoo 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the use of the word “if” is the reason we have at the end of it “that proves that”.
So personally, if we are removing the “if” and replacing it with “where”, then it would be conclusive, so the “proves that” should not be there.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
But that is why we are saying “where”, but if it is “if” -- [Interruption.]
It would be more elegant and correct to say “where the university has evidence that…”, but if you say “if the university has evidence that proves that…”
Hon Member for Wa West, “if they have evidence that proves that” or “where they have evidence that”, which one is preferable?
Mr Chireh 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, what I am arguing against is changing words that we have used continuously in our legislation.
If we change this “if” here, it means that anytime we see “if” in a legislation, we should change it to “where”. That is my worry, because we have legislations that we passed with this, and neither of the words is conclusive about evidence.
Then it goes further to now show that you need evidence. But if you change this from the way the draftsperson has put it, it means that anytime we see “if”, as the Hon Majority Leader said here we would be changing every Bill where we have “if”, as if it is wrong to use “if”. That is my worry.
I believe that if the meaning is distorted, fine, but if it is finesse, if it is about the language and all that, maybe Professor Yankah can help us. He used to write Woes of the Kwatriot, and he dances around with words, but in legislation let us not believe that “if” is wrongly used here.
Prof Yankah 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in this particular instance the two are in free variation.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
What did you say?
Prof Yankah 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, “if” and “where” in this particular context could be freely interchanged. Within this context I would not make any choice.
Prof Yankah 1:58 p.m.
I would say “if the University has evidence that…” Evidence means proof.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
He says you were the one who used to write what, Woes of a Kwatriot?
Prof Yankah 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I remember you in my class. [Laughter.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
Yes. I also want to know whether you were the one who used to write “Kontopiat” -- [Laughter.]
Prof Yankah 1:58 p.m.
“Kontopiat” was the late Prof. Emeritus Adu Boahen, and “Santrofi” was Prof Paul A. V. Ansah, but in this particular case, I would say “if the University has evidence that…”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
Hon Members, at least we have now come to a clear understanding. Whether it is “if” or “where”, we would have to delete “that proves”.
So it would be “if the university has evidence that…”, or “where the university has evidence that…”
That is what is being proposed.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 1:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if you go back to all the laws that we passed in 2014, 2015 and 2016, the drafters advised that in such instances we should rather delete “if” and insert “where”. That is why I am talking about consistency.
In 2017, they changed track and said we could use “if”, so if you look at the laws that we have fashioned in 2017 and 2018, we have “if”. If you go back to 2014, 2015 and 2016, the same people advised that we should use “where”.
Mr Speaker, so I am not really fixated on any word, whether “if” or “where”. Whatever it is, the evidence should prove fraud or academic malpractice.
So I believe we still have to capture the phrase “that proves that”. That is what we have done in all the pieces of legislation that we have crafted. Whether we have used “if” or “where”, we have still had evidence that proves that there is fraud or academic malpractice.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 1:58 p.m.
I agree with you. The only thing is that the drafters are just advisers. We are the ones who take responsibility. I have the University of Health and Allied Sciences Act, 2011 with me.
What we passed at section 4 (2), is the same phrase adopted there. It says that the University may withdraw a degree, diploma or certificate it has awarded, if it has evidence that proves that; “a, b, c” -- Definitely, that is not good English; there is repetition.
Mr Banda 2:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that evidence establishes a fact. Another word for “evidence” is “proof”. So if one has the evidence, then it means that one has been able to establish a certain set of facts.
I think that even if we do not add the phrase “that proves”, we would still achieve the same effect. This is because if one does not have the evidence, then what is the basis for saying that something has been obtained by fraudulent means? It is the evidence that establishes or prove the fact of the fraud. We could also say that it is also the proof that establishes the fact of the fraud.
Evidence, “otherwise put, is the same as proof”. So, if one has the evidence, then it means that one has the “proof”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:08 p.m.
Hon Banda, you are not right.
We use evidence to prove something. The evidence and the proof are not the same. The problem is with the use of the word “that”, and that is why I said it is not good English. If it says: “…If the University has evidence to prove that…”, then that one is correct, but if we say: “…if the University has evidence that proves that…,” then I do not believe that is correct.
Mr Banda 2:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we are saying the same thing.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:08 p.m.
No, we are not saying the same thing. We use evidence to prove something. The evidence itself does not amount to the proof. With the evidence that one may have, one may not be able to prove.
Mr Banda 2:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that what you are saying rather refers to the facts, which is also not the evidence. If one has the facts, it still does not amount to evidence. It is the evidence, which is the ultimate destination, that sifts the facts, and gives it the basis of the prove.
Mr Speaker, it is just like what happens in the court room. When the accused person is presented, the facts are given, but the Judge would base his judgement or ruling on the evidence that would be adduced. So, it is the
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:08 p.m.
Well, they are not the same.
Circumstantial evidence is there, depending also on the standard of proof. So, evidence cannot be equated with proof; no.
Mr Chireh 2:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if it is typical grammar that we are looking at, then as we go along, we sometimes eliminate so many words in grammar. Sometimes we could say: “to convert” or “convert”. When we look at the way the phrase is captured, the word “that” in the phrase is repeated, when it captures it as: “that proves that the degree or diploma was obtained…”
Mr Speaker, if it was just a simple sentence, then we could question why the phrase “proves that” was repeated, but this qualifies, - That is also why I said that grammar is not the case here. It is the way it is arranged. The word “that” is important because we now have two paragraphs.
What we are also saying is that if one has evidence and that evidence does not prove that one has got the thing wrong, it becomes important to
prove. So, it is not wrong to say that the evidence proves. This is because we could have evidence which may not prove anything. If we say that a person fraudulently claimed a title or said he had done something, then evidence must prove what happened.
Therefore, there is nothing grammatically wrong with the construction here. In drafting, we need to look at the arrangement of words, and that is why the word “that” is there. It has to be captured as “proves that…” then it would follow whether a degree or diploma was acquired in some way, other than the normal way.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:08 p.m.
Hon Members, there must be an end to litigation. We have to move on.
I think the understanding that we have now is to still retain the word “if”, but to delete the phrase: “that proves…” We would still want all of it to be there, so the understanding is that it should be captured as: “if the University has evidence that proves that; “a, b…”

I would not put any Question because it is already captured that way. Therefore, there is no proposed amendment, and so the proposal that

the Hon Majority Leader put before the House has been rejected --

Now, there is another proposal from the --
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:08 p.m.
-- rose --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:08 p.m.
The Hon Majority Leader does not like the term “rejected.”
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I only put out a suggestion, whether we would like to use the word “where” in place of the word “if”, as we have done at a certain period.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:08 p.m.
All right, I would rather say that your amendment has not been agreed upon, instead of saying it has been rejected.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, yes, it has not been agreed upon.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:08 p.m.
I accept that. It has not been agreed upon, but it is not rejected. [Laughter.]
Hon Members, the Hon Member for Daboya Mankarigu put up a suggestion, I hope. Or, is it a proposed amendment?
Mr Shaibu Mahama 2:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is a further proposed amendment, which has to do with clause 4(2), which says: “The University may withdraw…”
Mr Speaker, because we proposed to add “honorary degree”, paragraph (a) would not make it relevant. Therefore, I further propose that it should be captured as: “the University may withdraw any degree; honorary degree, diploma or certificate…”.Therefore, I propose that we delete and insert the word “any”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:18 p.m.
Hon Members, again, we want to differ from the earlier position that we have been taking; all the other laws that we passed have “a degree”; “diploma”; “certificate”; they do not say “any degree”.
Mr Shaibu Mahama 2:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the only difference is that those other laws do not have honorary degrees. The reason we are putting in “any” is because of the inclusion of honorary degrees.
Mr Quaittoo 2:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, before that, the “degree”, “honorary degree” and “certificate” have been defined in clause 4(1). So, we could just say “the” instead of “a”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:18 p.m.
Sorry, please, come again.
Mr Quaittoo 2:18 p.m.
In clause 4(1), we defined that university, in accordance with subsection (8) of section 14, award degrees, including honorary degrees, diplomas and certificates”. So, once they have been defined in clause 4(1)(2), could we not just say, the university may withdraw “the honorary degree”?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:18 p.m.
Well, that is another way out, but definitely, the honorary is added. Yes, we have done that earlier.
So Hon Members, the proposal is for us to delete the word “a” and then, insert “the” to clause 4(2), line
1.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the difficulty that I have there is that once we introduce “the” in subclause (2), the next description then would have to carry “that”. So, it would mean that the university may withdraw “the” degree, honorary degree, diploma or certificates the university has awarded if the university has evidence that proves that that degree —
That is my difficulty because once we introduce “the”, following after the application of the definite article, a referral to that same subject then, would have to bear “that” and no longer “the”. That is the problem that I have.
Mr Chireh 2:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the word, “the” before degrees, is because clause 4 (1)(1) already talks about those degrees that could be awarded. So, if we put in the definite article, there is no problem.
Another alternative may be that we delete “a” and if we delete “a”, then nothing is wrong grammatically with conforming to “honorary”. But if we put “the” there, we would not be required to say “that” in this one because that “the” is referring to subclause (1).
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:18 p.m.
Hon Members, actually, I do not see any problem with this rendition. It is
just that the Hon Member for Daboya/ Mankarigu raised it. I do not see any problem, but I can see Hon Mahama Ayariga on his feet.
Mr Mahama Ayariga 2:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was just about to say exactly what you have said, that I do not see any problem with the rendition here, because clause 4(1) talks about the university being able to award degrees including mandatory degrees, diplomas and certificates -- [Interruption.]
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:18 p.m.
It does not apply to that; the “a” is not meant to apply to all the other following things. It does not. There is nothing wrong with this rendition but you take the decision, I would only guide.
Yes, Hon Member, is your point on a different issue? Not on that clause? So, I would put the Question and you would take the decision and we move on.
Ms Gifty Twum-Ampofo 2:18 p.m.
Thank you Mr Speaker.
The head note of clause 4 is “Award of degrees”, but certificates and diplomas are not degrees. So, I would
like to propose that the head note should be “awards” and not “award of degrees”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:18 p.m.
Let me first put the Question on the first one. You have now taken us backwards because all the laws we have passed so far on this matter, always have the heading, “Award of degrees”. But you have drawn our attention to something that we might have overlooked. It is not that you are wrong, but let me put the Question on the issue raised by the Hon Member for Daboya/Mankarigu.
Question put and amendment negatived.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:18 p.m.
Now, our attention has been drawn to the heading and we are being told that diplomas and certificates are not degrees, but the heading says, “Award of degrees”. That is what we have captured throughout in the earlier legislation. Do we say because of consistency we would go with that or we get this new rendition?
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:18 p.m.


We do not seem to understand. She has moved that the head note should read, “Awards”, not “Award of degrees”.
Mr Chireh 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, when she raised the issue, I thought that we should rather add what we have left out; that is “Award of degrees, diplomas and certificates.”
It is long but that captures what she talked about. Someone also whispered “award of academic qualification'', but the “honorary'' is not academic. So, if we need to agree with her, we should mention all the things that are awardable, which are degrees, diplomat's and certificates. She just added, but we do not even need to add “honorary'' because the “degree'' would carry that meaning.
Mr Quaittoo 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, we did not conclude on the proposal which was made by the Hon Member for Daboya/ - we rejected the word “any'' so, the article “a'', still stands but I also proposed that it should be changed to “the''.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
When you proposed that, your
attention was drawn to the fact that it would affect the others at subclauses (a) and (b). It means that would also be deleted to read “that'', instead of “the degree''. It was incomplete and I did not think that we should continue to disturb the present structure.
Hon Members, my understanding is that we should add “diplomas'' and “certificates'' to the headnote.
Mr Banda 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree to that, except that the clause does not only speak to “award'' but also to “withdrawal''. So, to the extent that the headnote explains what is contained in the clause, I would suggest that it should be “award and withdrawal of degrees, diplomas and certificates''.
This is because the short title indicates the contents of the clauses. It does not only speak to “award'', but it also speaks to “withdrawal''.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
Actually, the subject of this whole clause is “Award”. We do not attempt to encourage universities to withdraw what they have awarded. So, Hon Member, I disagree with you.
Mr Bedzrah 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am one of those who advocate consistency but for this particular one, we should continue with whatever we
have. Instead of adding “diplomas and certificates'', we should maintain “Awards for consistency''. This is because for all the laws that we have passed in this House, it has been “Awards''.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
The consistency is that it has always been “Award of degrees''.
Mr Bedzrah 2:28 p.m.
Yes, Mr Speaker, let us continue with that.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if we have been consistently on the wrong path and have seen the light, nothing prevents us from doing the right thing. I agree that throughout, we have been just restricting ourselves to the “Award of degrees'' but given the new understanding, we could provide further illumination in the headnote.
Mr Speaker, I do not agree with the Hon Chairman of the Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee on including everything that is contained in the clause.
He is an Hon Member of Parliament and when article 94 talks about qualification and eligibility, the same provision talks about disqualifi-
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
He has given up -- he is not insisting on it.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if he has abandoned it, he should tell us.
Mr Banda 2:28 p.m.
I was guided by Mr Speaker, so on the basis of that I have abandoned it.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if he has abandoned it, then I need not further litigate the matter.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:28 p.m.
Do not over flog it. Hon Members, the proposal is to add to the headnote.
So, the new rendition would be:
“Award of degrees, diplomas and certificates”.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 -- The University Council
Mr Quaittoo 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, subclause (1), paragraph (e), delete and insert the following:
“one representative of the University Senior Staff Association of Ghana elected by the Association”.
Dr Marfo 2:28 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I need clarification on “elected by”. Are we anticipating a situation where the Association would elect somebody for the purpose of representing them on a Council? This is not what happens in practice. It is usually the president or any of the executives who may represent.
So, if we put it in this form, somebody may contest that there should be an election to elect somebody for the purpose of representing the Association on the Council. Are we contemplating a situation where the whole University Senior Staff Association would have an election just to elect somebody to represent them on a Council? That is
against the practice where usually, they have their executives and per their constitution the executives represent -- [Interruption].
Mr Bedzrah 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I agree with Hon (Dr) Marfo on that score. It is possible that the constitutions of the various associations would give the chairman or a secretary preference to sit on at some councils or committees. Therefore, I want to further amend the Hon Chairman's amendment, that instead of “elected by the Association”, we will have ‘‘nominated by the Association”.
Mr Quaittoo 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that an election can take any form. It is an Association and so, if they decide on a member, so be it. However, if they make it solely by nomination or by appointment, then that is where there can be some form of friction coming up in future. If you say “elected” and they decide to nominate, it is a form of election.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:38 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Effutu?
Mr Afenyo-Markin 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that we should avoid possible controversy and litigations. In the University of Education, Winneba
(UEW) Act we provided for Council members and we said that a representative from convocation or the Professional Teachers Association.
Mr Speaker, so once we are talking about a representation, how that is made, whichever selection or nomination, we leave it to the discretion of that body which is supposed to bring a representative.
If we talk about election and all that -- If we go on, we can even see that when it comes to subclause (h), it says;
“one representative of the students of the University elected by the Students' Representative Council and Graduate Students' Association”.
Mr Speaker, in other legislations, there is a representative from both the undergraduate and graduate students and so we have to be careful in this. A representative from that body is enough, rather than we specifying or legislating on how that should be done.
If I may fortify you; there was this case at the Supreme Court --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:38 p.m.
You want to fortify your case but not fortify me.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am sorry. I meant that in fortifying my submission.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:38 p.m.
Hon Member, yes.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I am grateful and I withdraw that. I think it is a wrong expression. I said so in error and I stand corrected.
Mr Speaker, there was a matter initiated by the University Teachers Association of Ghana (UTAG), UEW chapter at the Supreme Court. The president initiated the action on behalf of members of UTAG, UEW Chapter. There was a preliminary objection as to whether or not the president had sought the consent of the general membership.
Mr Speaker, a lecturer had filed a process challenging that case, to the effect that he was not aware and or he and some other lecturers had not been so consulted.
The Supreme Court overruled that preliminary objection taken by those concerned lecturers and said that to the extent that the President has been elected to lead and had that mandate, he could take an action for and on behalf of the members. He did not need to go through another motion.

Fortified by this, we can leave this matter to perhaps, the elected representatives of that body to bring somebody. It could be anybody from within, but if we say that they should elect then we are creating another problem.

Mr Speaker, I so submit.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:38 p.m.
Well, I see that we used the same process of election in the earlier laws we passed. That is; “a representative elected by the group”. It is not only with UTAG but with all the other groups in the other laws.
This means that experience has shown that there is a problem with just leaving as; “a representative of”. In trying to get the representative, there have been some problems and maybe, that is why we have changed it now and are insisting that there should be plurality in the decision and then we will say; “elected”.
Mr Chireh 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I support the amendment by the Hon Chairman. Even if we say; “nominated”, it will involve a selection process, therefore the idea is that the person should be elected. However, if the Association itself says that they will adopt their constitution at a conference, congress or whatever and
that the president or secretary of their Association should represent them, it is still part of the election process. Now, the danger is with a repre- sentative who would decide who the representative would be?
Mr Speaker, there are tendencies where people would say this person is favourable and so he will represent them. We are saying that the person should be elected as we are in a democratic situation.
We all got elected here, and did not just walk in here to people hailing and applauding us. So I think that the principle of election should be there. If any other institution decides that by their decision, this is what they want to do, it is up to them.
However, the Committee talked about this and supported your view that if we just leave it, it will become -- In fact, the Hon Member for Effutu was contradicting himself because according to him, the Supreme Court said there should have still been a process.
So the issue is that whatever it is, there must be a way of electing and involving the ordinary members of that Association. That is important. He was rather decreasing the force and not fortifying anything.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:38 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Effutu?
Mr Afenyo-Markin 2:38 p.m.
Mr Speaker, first of all and in all seriousness, I do not want to be misquoted and same will get in the records. I did not contradict myself by saying that the Supreme Court had said that there should have been election. Please, with respect, I never said so.
Mr Speaker, having addressed that matter, in other legislations where we had talked about institutional representation, for instance, we have had several legislations where we have said; “a representative from the Ghana Bar Association or Institute of Chartered Accountants”
Just as sometimes we enact and even leave operational matters to the Hon Minister to deal with by virtue of coming here with an Executive or Legislative Instrument or in some cases, a Constitutional body is given the mandate to come with a Constitutional Instrument (C.I.) to operationalise, let us leave the process of the said representation to that body rather than to say; “elect”.
I beg to disagree with my Learned Senior Hon Member who is also a pharmacist which I am not -- I do not know whether Hon Yieleh Chireh
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader, I was just trying to look at the earlier legislations we have passed and they are here before me. We have been using “elected”.
Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just a minor issue with the Hon Member for Effutu. He said that the Hon Member for Wa West has been raising a lot of points of orders against him.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
You are referring to your Hon Leader -- particularly when the Hon Leader is right.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I have taken a cue.
Mr Speaker, it is points of order. There comes a time that one may slip. This is a genuine mistake that I made, and I have taken his correction in good faith.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Member has raised several points of order against me and the records would show.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
Well, to the best of my knowledge, the Hon Member for Wa West is not leaving. He would contest the primaries, so I am sure that you are daydreaming.
Now, he knows his opponents and enemies.
Hon Ayariga -
Mr Ayariga 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that there is genuine concern about the use of “elected”. In the process of choosing representatives from the various associations there are about five associations, and one of them is a union. We definitely know that “elected” is the process of deciding, and that decision could be by voting or by some other means.
So, when “elected” is used in this context, it does not necessarily mean that there has to be a general election of all the members of the association. If we look at the way it has been framed, it is meant to curtail situations where some authorities would find ways to choose for the association, who should serve on the Council, and that is why in all the instances it has been framed in such a way that, it is one representative of the association elected by the association.
The association would normally have an internal mechanism for deciding. It is not elected by all students in the university, but it is elected by the Students' Representative Council.
So, if they go through their constitutional process of deciding who should -- it would normally be at the association's council meeting, where the President would nominate and the
rest may vote for or against, and then the person would emerge as the representative of that association or that union.
So, this rendition effectively deals with the problem we have had in the past where university councils found ways to decide who came from the association to serve on the council. Though that person does not really come as a real mouthpiece or spokesperson of the association.
Mr Speaker, so in my opinion, this is the best rendition that we could have to solve that problem, even though we should also appreciate that “elected”, in all instances, does not mean a voting process by the generality of all members of the association. So I would urge that we maintain the amendment that:
“one representative of the University Senior Staff Association of Ghana elected by the Association”.
Mr Speaker, on a more general note, I have noticed that consistently, we have legislated associations; private associations. People form the associations, and when we enact in legislations, we mention them and compel representatives from those associations.
Mr Speaker, I think that we should be a bit careful because University Senior Staff Association of Ghana --I do not know if the Constitution mentions this -- Mr Speaker, the Constitution has even made those mistakes where private associations are legislated on constitutionally and sometimes by statutes.
Maybe in the future, we should decide if we just want a representative of the teachers in the university; but once we say a representative of a teacher's association, then how about if some teachers rebel against the existing association and form their own association, where there would be three or four teachers associations on the same campus?
By law, they could form their own associations because it is not mandatory to be a member of any one association.
Mr Speaker, this is just on a more general note, but I think that the use of “elected” serves our purpose, so we should retain it.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:48 p.m.
Well, I think that this is a very simple matter and we should not belabour the point.

Let us move on because I intend to adjourn the House at 3.00 p.m. We have to finish clause 5 before we do so.

I thought that you would raise issues concerning the fact that we are moving away from “federation” because that has been proposed, and we captured same in the earlier legislation. “A federation of University Senior Staff Association”, but now the rendition is straight -- “University Senior Staff Association”. Maybe, there is a change in that and the Hon Chairman has not drawn our attention.

Hon Majority Leader -- ?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:48 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that in the laws that we have passed in this House, we have used “elected”. For purposes of consistency, perhaps we could still cling to that word. I however, disagreed with the Hon Member for Bawku Central when he said that “election” could mean some other means of choosing representatives.
Mr Speaker, I disagree because “election” is “election”. What I guess he meant was that we could have some other means of choosing or selecting people to represent groups other than through an election.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 2:58 p.m.
So, maybe going forward, and, as I have said, for reasons of consistency we have used the terminology “election”. We have done so because ultimately, whether they are elected or not, it is the President who, under article 70, is required to appoint them. We could have a President who could have his own way, go behind them and nominate somebody. Then he could appoint the person to represent the institution.
Mr Speaker, we wanted to avoid this, and that is why we said that the ‘‘University Senior Staff Association'' or whoever should conduct their own election and bring their own representative.
Mr Speaker, but as I have said, going forward, perhaps, we could say “one representative of the association chosen by the association” then they would have their own way of selecting or choosing the representative. Mr
Speaker, we want to be democratic, but we should also recognise that an election is not the only vehicle to arrive at the kingdom of democracy or democratic governance.
To be consistent, we have used “election” -- do we restrict ourselves to that or, perhaps, be wise now and say that “one representative of the association chosen by the association”? I think that would provide them with some latitude, instead of restricting them to elections.

Mr Speaker, that is what I would say to what is under consideration by us at the moment. I think that the better arrangement would be “one representative of the association chosen by the association”. I think that is a better terminology.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:58 p.m.
Yes, Hon Member for Effutu, what are you pointing out?
Mr Afenyo-Markin 2:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I wanted to draw attention to subclause (1), paragraph (I), where there is even an amendment that seeks to use “nominated by alumni association of the University” just to support the fact that if we are to
change from “elections”, it would even be in accord with what we are doing. This is because, if we go further down, alumni representation is not by election. It says it is by nomination.
So what the Hon Majority Leader said should be strongly considered by the Hon Chairman for the representative to be chosen instead of restricting it to election. We are wiser than before.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:58 p.m.
I think what we are doing now is inclusivity. We would want to include, knowing more people, because we have now moved into participatory democracy. What concerns all of us must be decided by all of us.
So instead of just talking about nomination, choosing or whatever, we would want that process to be elective, which is quite an inclusive and open process that is acceptable democratically.
That is what we have been using; we have been using “election”, so we should still use the same word. I think the proposal from the Hon Chairman is right. I only wanted clarification as to how we have moved from “federation”; whether we no longer have federations and there are just university councils.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:58 p.m.


change. They have changed it from “federation”
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:58 p.m.
Exactly. So that is not captured in your explanation. I would put the Question.
Question put and amendment agreed to.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:58 p.m.
Let us take the last proposed amendment to clause 5 and call it a day.
Mr Quaittoo 2:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5 -- subclause (1), paragraph (i), delete “expert” insert “an alumni with expertise” and after “industry” add “nominated by the Alumni Association of the University”.
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 2:58 p.m.
“an alumni with expertise in Technology or Applied Sciences from industry nominated by the Alumni Association of the University”.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:58 p.m.
With this one, would you want it as “nominated”? The other laws I have says “one representative of the Alumni of the University”. That is what is
captured in the earlier laws. Now, you would want to refer to the same technology and applied sciences. It is the university and alumni of that university.
Yes, Hon Member for Effutu?
Mr Afenyo-Markin 2:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, a few minutes ago, you said that in participatory democracy, those who represent us must be properly elected; you justified it and I agreed with you.

Mr Speaker, today, I am getting a lot of education. Former students of the institution can call themselves members of the university's alumni. If the senior staff association is supposed to elect a representative to serve on the Council, why is it that when it gets to the alumni, we say they should choose?

What of if we have more than five people who have expertise in applied sciences or technology? Then we are saying that some people should go and nominate one person to serve. That would not be democratic as you rightly put it in your earlier justification in disagreement with the Hon Majority Leader.

So if it is “election”, there must be election. I therefore would want to make a further amendment that “nominated” be deleted and “elected” be inserted.

Mr Speaker, I so propose.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:58 p.m.
Hon Member for Wa West?
Mr Chireh 2:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman seems to be in difficulty because I was part of the discussion of this Bill at the level of the Committee.
The idea was to have the alumni representative separate from the experts, and the experts should come from a recognised industrial organisation so that if we look at the number we are dealing with now, the Board, in the memorandum, should be about 16 members.
In the two related institutions, one said 11 members another said 16 members. In this particular case, we should not combine the representative of the Alumni with the experts. The experts should be from industry. We have industrial associations or industries recognised by the Government.
So the experts should be separated from the alumni, but the way it has been moved, it means that one person would represent the alumni who must have the expertise.
In this particular case, we must have an alumni, but with the expertise, because it is a technology and applied science university, we need an expertise from the industry. I do not know whether the Hon Chairman could further explain this. Even if we are to do so, we should not combine these two with one person.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:58 p.m.
I think the Hon Member for Wa West makes sense because the experts should not come from the alumni group. We should have an expert and an alumni to be a member. We have to look at the number because if we just took only the two, we would have 12, which is not an odd numeral.
Yes, Hon Chairman?
Mr Quaittoo 2:58 p.m.
Mr Speaker, it is exactly so. That was why we combined the two. The person must be an alumni and have the expertise.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:58 p.m.
It would not be to the advantage of the Council to combine the two. You need the expert there, and an alumni there.

would get an even numeral -- 12.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:08 p.m.
Yes, we have to look at the other numbers so that we can have a 13— member Council. Some of the councils we have established have more than 11 members.

If you look at the University Council of Health and Allied Sciences, they have the Chairman, the Vice Chancellor; five persons nominated by the President; one representative from the National Council for Tertiary Education; two elected Members of Convocation; one elected representative of the University Teachers Association; one elected representative of the University Branch of the Federation on University Senior Staff Association; one elected representative of Teachers and Education Workers Union; one elected representative of the Conference of Heads of Assisted Secondary Schools; one elected representative of undergraduate students, one representative of graduate students -- It is so large a council.

So increasing the number from 11 to 13 is not too much. What we may do is to give the Committee the opportunity to go and look at this issue and come back tomorrow, so that we can continue with it.

I initially indicated that I would adjourn at 3 o'clock. It is after 3 o'clock.

Hon Majority Leader, what do you say? I propose to adjourn the House.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, just one observation - increasing the numbers may certainly add some other cost to the University.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:08 p.m.
One of the speeches I loved from Former President Kufuor was that Ghanaians seemed to know the cost of everything, but not the value.
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is by the way. I just said that we may need to think through. The Hon Member for Effutu raised an issue about how we have lumped the students together. In other legislations, we have separated the undergraduates from the graduate students. Would we consider that? If we did, how do we also consider these other things?
Mr Speaker, earlier, I proposed that if we wanted to be consistent, we should have used the “election” by the various institutions and sectors within the university environment. Even though we want to ensure collective as well as individual interests, we are talking about election. An election is not the only thing that ensures participation.
This is because when the Constitution in article 55(5) talks about the internal organisation of political parties, when it says that it should be democratic, the same Constitution, in article 55(9), then provides that the national officers of any political party shall be chosen from all the regions. It did not say that they shall be elected from all the regions.
So we may not have to confuse the process that an election is the only way to ensure democratic governance. It is not so. That was why I said that going forward, we may say to ourselves that we should allow those various sectors to choose their own representatives, not necessarily by election.
I, however, agree that if we want to be consistent, then we would say that they should do so by election. Either than that, I disagree that it should be the only way to have
representation from the various sectors to be at the Council. I disagree, but I would yield.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:08 p.m.
I do not think that is the position taken by the House. I only think that we are guided by the lessons of the past, and we are trying as much as possible, to make sure that this time around, all the members involved take the decision as to who should lead or represent them. I think that is why we are using “elected”; but there are some instances where we have used the word, “nominated”.
You are talking about alumni. It is not possible to get that large group together to elect, so the word used there is “nominated”. You can even say “choose” and not “elect”. So we are guided by experience.
As for democracy, it is an attempt, as much as possible, to be inclusive, open and transparent; and election is not the only way. Appointees that are not elected is part of democracy.
Mr Ayariga 3:08 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think we also have to be mindful of the fact that when we say “elect”, it does not necessarily imply an election. It is to decide. The Hon Majority Leader could elect to leave the Chamber, which he has been doing [Laughter.] When he elects to leave the Chamber,
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:18 p.m.
Well, we are just repeating the same thing. We in this House, are said to always elect the Rt Hon Speaker, but
can we tell the number of times we actually went to that election of voting? That is what the Standing Orders say. In taking decisions, the first thing is to build consensus.
Once there is consensus, there is no disagreement for you to put it to a vote to be elected, but we use the word “elect” to give the opportunity for us to exploit the whole process of decision-taking. That is all.
So when there is consensus building, you do not go the extra mile, you just go on; but when there is disagreement, then you have to put it to a vote, and the word that could be used there is not “select”. It is “elect”, and that is why that word is preferred.
In the case of the alumni, we cannot get that opportunity to get all the members to go through that process together, and that is why the person would be nominated. The person is not elected.
So it is good to use both, and sometimes to even say “select” because it depends on the context. I think the proposal made here is right. The only thing is that we ask the Committee to make sure that we have two representatives; one, an expert in the field and the other, a
representative of the alumni association. In doing so, we look at the numbers to make sure that we do not legislate an even number, we legislate an odd number.
We are guided by what we have done earlier in the other legislations in establishing the other universities. That is all we ask the Committee to do.
So in the meantime, I would propose that with your kind indulgence, I adjourn the House till tomorrow to give opportunity for the Committee to look at it together with the Ministry, the proposers of the Bill, and then we continue the business tomorrow.
Hon Member for Effutu, you are now the available Leader.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 3:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader asked me to come and sit here for the time being.
Mr Speaker, by sitting here, you are right in saying “available Leader” because he asked me to come and sit by his side.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:18 p.m.
Well, I recognised you as the available Leader. I am sure you did not just trespass. You lawfully came there to sit.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 3:18 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I was earlier trying to engage --
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:18 p.m.
I am going to adjourn.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 3:18 p.m.
Very well, Mr Speaker.
I wanted the view of the former Hon Deputy Attorney-General, but since you have made a decision -- [Interruption.] He cannot speak himself because he is coming from court, so there is no point.
Mr Speaker, I am urged to move, but I cannot move for adjournment. That is not the rule. It is past the hour, so Mr Speaker has the discretion to close proceedings.
Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:18 p.m.
Hon Members, we have come to the end of the Consideration Stage for today, and I propose to adjourn the House.
ADJOURNMENT 3:18 p.m.