Debates of 1 Aug 2019

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 11:05 a.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Hon Members, sorry for starting late; we were doing some important housekeeping matters, upon which we are making progress, so let us finish hard. [Hear! Hear!]
Hon Members, correction of Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 31st July, 2019.
Page 1…9 --
Mr Ablakwa 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am most grateful.
On page 9, item numbered 10, let us replace ‘they' with ‘the'. ‘The delegation included…'
Mr Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Thank you very much, Hon Member.
Page 10 --
rose
Mr Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Yes, Hon Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee?
Mr Annoh-Dompreh 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, I am grateful. I tried to catch your attention earlier. On page 8, item numbered 4, I was here yesterday; I am surprised I have been marked absent.
Mr Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Thank you.
Page 10, 11 --
rose
Mr Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Yes, Hon Okudzeto Ablakwa?
Mr Ablakwa 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on page 11, I thought that because of the nature of the special Sitting yesterday with the officials from the United States of America and Ghana, item numbered 11, H. E. Jerry John Rawlings-- it would not hurt if we are
Mr Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Thank you very much.
Page 9, 10, 11, 12 --
Mr Chireh 11:05 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on page 12, you would see ‘Mrs N. K. Agyeman-Rawlings, former First Lady' of which Republic? So may be, we would just have to add ‘Ghana' to all. Otherwise, the correction the Hon Member has made -- when we in this House talk about the Republic, we mean Ghana, but Mr Speaker, you agreed to the correction.
So I believe that we would need to correct all and ensure that whenever there is an official like the third item on the same page, Rt Hon Edward Doe Adjaho, former Speaker of the Parliament of Ghana.' If that is the case.
Mr Speaker 11:05 a.m.
Thank you very much.
Yes, any further corrections?
Page 13…23 --
Hon M embers, the Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 31st July, 2019 as corrected, is hereby adopted as the true record of proceedings.
Hon Members, we have Official Report of Friday, 5th July, 2019.
  • [No correction was made to the Official Report of Friday, 5th July, 2019.]
    • Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    Hon member, we agreed to skip items 3 and 4 for now and proceed to the Commencement of Public Business -- item listed 5.
    Mr Kwasi Ameyaw-Cheremeh 11:15 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, with your leave, I would want to lay item numbered 5(a) on behalf of the Hon Majority Leader.
    Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    Hon Majority Chief Whip, you may.
    PAPERS 11:15 a.m.
    Mr Ameyaw-Cheremeh 11:15 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we may skip item listed 5(b) and move on to 5(c) -- the Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee is available.
    Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    Item listed 5(c), by the Hon Chairman of the Finance Committee.
    By the Chairman of the Committee —
    Report of the Finance Committee on the Communications Service Tax (Amendment) Bill, 2019.
    Report of the Finance Committee on the Earmarked Funds Capping and Realignment (Amendment) Bill, 2019.
    Report of the Finance Committee on the Energy Sector Levies (Amendment) Bill, 2019.
    Report of the Finance Committee on the Luxury Vehicle Levy (Repeal) Bill,
    2019.
    Report of the Finance Committee on the sum of GH¢6,370,355,925.82 as Supplementary Estimate of Government for the 2019 Financial Year.
    Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    Hon Members, item numbered 6, Motion.
    Hon Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee?
    MOTIONS 11:15 a.m.
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr James K. Avedzi) 11:15 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that this
    Honourable House adopts the Report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Report of the Auditor-General on the Public Accounts of Ghana (Polytechnics) for the Period ended 31st December, 2015.
    Mr Speaker, in so doing, I present your Committee's Report.
    1.0 Introduction
    The report of the Auditor-General on Polytechnics and Technical Universities of Ghana for year ended 31st December, 2015 was presented to Parliament on Tuesday, 14th March, 2017, in accordance with article 187 (2) and (5) of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana and Section 23(1) of the Audit Service Act, 2000 (Act 584). Pursuant to Order 165(20) of the Standing Orders of the Parliament of Ghana. Mr Speaker referred the report to the Public Accounts Committee for examination and report.
    2.0 Deliberation
    The Committee met with officials of each of the ten (10) Polytechnics/ Technical Universities in Ghana and examined the report. The meetings to
    consider this report and other Auditor- General's Reports took place in Tamale, Sunyani, Takoradi, Ho and Accra from the 12th of February, to 12th of May, 2018.
    3.0 Acknowledgement
    The Committee is grateful to the Hon Ministers for the Northern, Western, Brong Ahafo and Volta Regions for the warm reception accorded the Committee during the visits and for participating in the Committee's sittings.
    The Committee expresses its appreciation to the Rectors and Vice Chancellors of the Polytechnics and Technical Universities and all other witnesses who assisted the Committee in its deliberations.
    The Committee again is grateful to the Auditor-General and his technical Team for their immense assistance to the Committee throughout its deliberations on the report.
    Finally, the Committee extends its profound appreciation to the German Development Cooperation (GIZ) for supporting the activities of the Committee and to the media (both print and electronic) for broadly- publicising its proceedings.
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr James K. Avedzi) 11:15 a.m.


    A Total of GH¢223,051.94 was recovered during the public sittings of the Public Accounts Committee.

    8.0 Observations and Recom- mendations

    Tamale Polytechnic/Technical University

    8.1 Wrong Calculation of Interest Payment of GH¢172,966.00

    In violation of Regulation 39(c) of FAR, 2004 and Regulation 31(1) of FAR, Management of Tamale Polytechnic failed to properly

    Table 1: Summary of Financial irregularities

    Table 2: Summary of finacial irregularities by each Polytechnic for the year 2015

    authenticate interest accrued on delayed payment. The Committee observed that due to delay in GETFund's payment for a Toyota Land Cruiser costing GH¢196,869.00 procured from M/s Auto Mall Ghana, an accumulated interest of GH¢172,966.00, was levied which mistakenly included VAT/NHIL component of GH¢28,279.26 from 29th January 2013 to 2nd December, 2014. The Committee however, noticed that the interest should have been GH¢144,686.74, but was calculated as GH¢172,966.00 due to Management's failure to authenticate the amount.
    Chairman of the Committee (Mr James K. Avedzi) 11:15 a.m.
    11.3Payment made after expiration of contract -- GH¢ 220, 000.00
    The Committee observed that management of the University paid an amount of GH¢220,000.00 to XIT Company Limited in 2015 for a contract which was abrogated as far back in April 2012. The Committee further noted that management failed to provide documents to substantiate the payments made.
    Recommendation
    The Committee recommends that management of the University should recover the amount paid to the contractor. XIT Company Limited failure of which the authorising officer and Finance Officer will be surcharged.
    12 Sunyani Polytechnic
    12.1 Contracting Loan to complete GETFund Project --
    GH¢3,500,000.00
    The Audit revealed that a contract for remodelling of the HCIM block into a lecture hall complex for Sunyani Polytechnic was awarded to M/S Berock Ventures Limited on 29th June 2011 at a Contract sum of GH¢ 2,886.049 which was reviewed upwards to GH¢7,259,078.78 in May 2015 to
    take care of variation of
    GH¢4,373,029.73.
    The Committee observed that, the Polytechnic contracted a credit facility from GCB in the sum of GH¢3,500,000.00 without authority from the Minister of Education and the Minister for Finance. The Committee noted that an amount of GH¢3,328,398.64 has so far been disbursed from the facility. Further to this, the Polytechnic paid out of its IGF accumulated interest cost of GH¢218,935.00 on the loan. Management conceded that they erred by this act.
    Recommendation
    The Committee recommends that management should seek retros- pective authorisation from the Ministry of Finance to cover the commitment so far, while they pursue GETFund to refund the loan to the Polytechnic. The Committee further recommends that management of the Polytechnic be sanctioned in accordance with regulation 8(4) of the
    FAR 2004 (LI 1802).
    12.2 Deserted GETFund Bungalow
    The Committee observed that between 2005 and 2006 the GETFund constructed a 5-bedroom
    bungalow with accompanying boys' quarters as the official duty post of the Polytechnic Rector. As at the time of audit the bungalow still remained unoccupied. The Audit revealed that the bungalow could not be occupied after completion because of its proximity to the GRIDCO Pylon (High tension line).
    In response, management of the polytechnic indicated that it was not required to obtain a building permit as at the time the building was being put up. However, at the time of the construction work, VRA was extending electricity to Kenyasi for Newmont Ghana Limited, and the high tension cables passed over the building. Management indicated that the school has since alerted VRA and they were preparing to pay the school some compensation.
    Recommendation
    The Committee recommends that management should expedite action to ensure that appropriate compensation due the University is paid by VRA. Further to this, Management should get expert advice with the necessary permits before undertaking any project in future.
    .
    12.3 Failure to deduct five per cent withholding tax on contract payment -- GH¢166,444.92
    The Committee observed that in contravention of regulation 126 of the Financial Administration Regulations Act of 2004 (LI. 1802) the Acting Finance Officer, Mr Daniel Hinneh failed to deduct the statutory five per cent withholding tax from total payment of GH¢3,328,898.64 made to Messrs Berock Ventures Limited. Details of the payments are as shown in Table 3 below;

    TABLE 3: Un-Accounted 5 per cent witholding Tax.
    Mr Speaker 11:15 a.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Any Seconder?
    Mr Kofi Okyere-Agyekum (NPP -- Fanteakwa South) 11:15 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion
    Mr Kofi Okyere-Agyekum (NPP -- Fanteakwa South) 11:25 a.m.
    and in doing so, I would make a few comments.
    Mr Speaker, we noted that there were significant infractions particularly, among them. We found out that most of the polytechnics paid for committee and council allowances without approval from the Hon Minister for Finance. For example, Tamale Polytechnic paid GH¢340,367.000, Ho Polytechnic paid GH¢330,000 and Accra Polytechnic also paid GH¢219,510 without the approval of the Hon Minister for Finance.

    In total this particular infraction amounted to GH¢674,480 for the period ended 31st December, 2015.

    Mr Speaker, another recurrent and significant infraction was the situation where most of the polytechnics had resorted to funding GETFund Projects from their own resources. Mr Speaker, Tamale Polytechnic used their own resources to fund five GETFund Projects to the tune of GH¢3,310,767. Mr Speaker, Sunyani Polytechnic also funded a lecture hall to the tune of

    GH¢3,500,000.

    Mr Speaker, these projects were all awarded by GETFund, but as of the time of reporting in December

    2015, they had not been funded appropriately. So the polytechnics had taken it upon themselves to fund these projects from their internal resources.

    Mr Speaker, our recommendation is that some of these projects were awarded as far back as 2004 and so GETFund should ensure that they plan properly to be able to fund the projects on time and the moneys should be refunded to the polytechnics for their internal operations.

    Mr Speaker, another significant problem was the delay by GETFund in paying for projects that had been awarded. Again, we found out that Tamale Polytechnic had five projects to the tune of GH¢3,210,767 which were awarded in 2014, but they had not been completed.

    Also, Sunyani Polytechnic has a science block that had been awarded since February 2004 to the tune to GH¢2,753,705 and it has also not been completed at the time of the audit in 2015. So there is a total amount of GH¢6,551,778 for projects that have been awarded over a period of time but they had still not been completed as at the time of the audit.

    Mr Speaker, we also noted that Tamale Polytechnic in particular resorted to splitting a contract into 18

    lots in order to be able to circumvent the Public Procurement Act which required that approval should be sought from an appropriate authority if a contract is beyond a particular threshold. Mr Speaker, so we recommend that the officers involved in this should be sanctioned with the amounts involved.

    Mr Speaker, with these words I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon Member, thank you very much.
    Question proposed.
    Mr Rockson-Nelson E. K. Dafeamekpor (NDC -- South Dayi) 11:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to make a few comments in respect of this Report. I would focus on the issues that have been raised in respect of Ho Technical University.
    Mr Speaker, the Committee's Report establishes that an amount of GH¢300,000 had been given to the contractor who was working on the GETFund project by way of an advance payment. Mr Speaker, the worry I have with such practices is that when contractors bid for projects, there are requirements within the tender document to demonstrate that they have the requisite capacity in terms of the technical ability as well
    as the financial wherewithal to be able to undertake the project. Yet, as soon as they win the tender, they begin to cry that they have no money to undertake the project.
    So how did they satisfy the tender requirements before they were awarded the contract? Mr Speaker, it is sad we are told today that an amount GH¢300,000 that the university should have applied to other projects in the school has been given to the contractor, and it is yet to be refunded.
    I think that as much as we get the opportunity to debate on some of these matters, I think it is time for this House to take a decision and direct the statutory institutions to do the appropriate thing.
    Further, it has been revealed by the Report, in respect of the same university, that an amount of GH¢81,332 had been advanced to 13 officers of the university in clear breach of section 5(a) of the Retention Funds Act of 2007 (Act 735). These moneys are yet to be refunded.
    Mr Speaker, my worry is that the practice of the advancement of the moneys to the officers of the university constitutes a breach of a statutory provision, yet the Committee failed to make a recommendation as to what
    Mr Speaker 11:25 a.m.
    Hon Member, thank you very much for the contribution.
    Mr Mohammed H. Tuferu (NPP -- Nanton) 11:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of the Motion ably moved by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Speaker, I have a general comment to make on the Auditor- General's findings on the various infractions. If we look at pages 6 and 7, the infractions are payrolls, procurement, tax, stores, contracts, irregularities, cash debtors and so on. So every year, all these infractions are
    repeated and we recommend that sanctions and actions should be taken so that the occurrences would be minimised.
    Mr Speaker, but it is this same infractions that come to this House. We have 10 technical universities and all of them have one of these infractions as far as this Report is concerned. So I would want to suggest to this august House to seriously look at this Report and adopt the recommendations so that the necessary actions could be taken for the officers to do whatever is necessary under the financial laws and all other laws to minimise the occurrence of these infractions.

    Mr Speaker, I would take you to page 7 of this Report, in paragraph 8.5 where staff who have been allocated bungalows for official purposes and are expected to pay monthly rents to help maintain such facilities so that when they retire, such facilities would still be available for other staff to benefit same are refusing to pay. Some have not paid for over one year and even two years and so on.

    Unfortunately, management has failed to take the necessary action to retrieve the money or make them vacate such facilities for those who

    also want to benefit and are serious to pay to occupy. We have made serious recommendation that management should either take those moneys from them or make them vacate such bungalows so that the intended purposes for taking such small money from them for the maintenance of such facilities is realised.

    Mr Speaker, on paragraph 15 of the Report, there is a serious matter of a company going into joint venture with Kumasi Polytechnic where there are issues to address in terms of equity contribution; how much Kumasi Polytechnic should contribute and how much the private partner should also contribute for them to go into the production of technology products.

    There was no approval from the Board and the Ministry of Finance for this arrangement to the extent that Kumasi Polytechnic paid their portion of the Agreement to the private company and the private company which never contributed, took the money without doing what was expected under the Agreement.

    The amount involved is over GH¢330,000.00 which was given to a private person to use and add his portion of the equity so that they are

    able set up a venture to produce technological products to help the technical university.

    Unfortunately, Kumasi Polytechnic paid theirs to that partner but the partner never contributed anything but rather squandered that money with no production and action taken. We recommended that those who were involved in giving such moneys to the private venture be made to either pay the money or pursue the private company to get their money from them.

    Mr Speaker, with these few words, I thank you for the opportunity.
    Mr Speaker 11:35 p.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Member.
    One more contribution from each side of the House, then Leaders.
    Mr Edward K. Dery (NDC -- Lambussie) 11:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Motion that this House adopts your own Committee's Report. As you earlier indicated, I would move straight to my contribution. That is from page 17, paragraph 12.3 -- Failure to deduct withholding taxes to the tune of GH¢3,328,898.00. This has been one of the infractions that keep occurring almost every year.
    Mr Speaker 11:35 p.m.
    Hon Member, the final contribution before the Leaders.
    Mr Kwabena Ohemeng- Tinyase (NPP -- Kade) 11:45 a.m.
    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to contribute to the Motion on the findings of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on the polytechnics and the technical universities. In doing so, I make reference to the recommendations on Accra Polytechnic. It would sadden you to note that sometimes there are very serious infractions that are
    intentionally made for the self-seeking interest of some of our people.
    To mention the colossal sum of GH¢219,510.00 which was paid as allowances for some staff of the university for attending management meetings, specifically Board meetings when it is clear by all regulations that such members were not entitled to such allowances.

    Lo and behold, they had the approval; the documents went to the Accounts Office; the Internal Auditors approved and such sum was paid to them. Added to this infraction is another situation where the authorities of the University granted loans to staff and found it very difficult to recover even though they were paying the staff on monthly basis.

    So it stands to question why they gave the loan to the same persons they pay monthly and they are now telling the world that they are unable to collect at source from the incomes they pay them. In this specific case, a colossal sum of about GH¢52,814.41 had also been long outstanding without collection. Even if we add these two sums together, we are getting close to about GH¢300,000.00 which could do a lot to improve services, facilities and
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Leadership, please.
    Mr Ameyaw-Cheremeh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, you may put the Question.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Leader, where do we move to?
    Mr Ameyaw-Cheremeh 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, item numbered 7, Motion.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Item numbered 7, Motion.
    MOTIONS 11:45 a.m.
    Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah) 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that this Honourable House adopts the Report of the Finance Committee on the Annual Report of the Public Interest and Accountability Committee (PIAC) on the Management and Use of Petroleum Revenues for the Year
    2018.
    Mr Speaker, in so doing, I present the Committee's Report.
    1.0 Introduction
    The Annual Report of the Public Interest and Accountability Committee (PIAC) on the Management and Use of Petroleum Revenues for the Year 2018 was presented to Parliament on Tuesday, 9th July, 2019, by the Majority Leader and Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, Hon Osei Kyei-Mensah- Bonsu in accordance with the Petroleum Revenue Management Act, 2011 (Act 815) and the Standing Orders of the House and referred to the Finance Committee for consideration and report.
    The Committee met with a Deputy Minister for Finance, Hon Charles Adu Boahene, a Deputy Minister for Energy, Hon Joseph Cudjoe, officials from the Public Interest and Accountability Committee (PIAC), Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA), Bank of Ghana (BoG), Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), Ghana National Gas Company (GNGC), Tullow Ghana Limited, the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) to consider the referral and reports as follows:
    2.0 Reference
    The Committee referred to the following documents:
    1. The 1992 Constitution of Ghana;
    2. The Petroleum Revenue Management Act of 2011 (Act 815);
    3. The Standing Orders of Parliament; and
    4. The 2018 Semi-Annual PIAC Report on the Management and Use of Petroleum.
    3.0 Background
    The Public Interest and Accountability Committee (PIAC), established under section 51 of the Petroleum Revenue Management Act, 2011 (Act 815) is required to prepare and publish two reports -- semi and annual reports -- each year detailing how much petroleum revenue has been collected during the period under review and how the amount so collected has been utilised.
    The reports, among others, is to provide oversight and monitoring of the management of petroleum revenues. The reports are also expected to capture the performance of the Ghana Petroleum Funds (GPFs) and the feedback received
    MMSCF, 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Cassiel Ato Baah Forson (NDC -- Ajumako/Enyan/ Essiam) 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr Speaker, in doing so, let me also thank the Public Interest and Accountability Committee (PIAC) for such a diligent work done.
    Mr Speaker, I was amazed to see the quality of work that was done by PIAC. In fact, I initially thought that the work was done by a consultant, but they informed us that they did it themselves. If you to looked at the technical work that has been done, one cannot help but thank them for such work.
    One thing that struck me was the fact that even though they spent a lot of time in looking at what oil revenue has been used for, particularly those that have been expended by the Ministry of Finance through the Annual Budget Funding Amount (ABFA), I thought that it was also important for PIAC to do some diligent work on what has been expended by the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC).
    Mr Speaker, often times, we ignore GNPC because we think it is not a fiscal institution and their
    expenditure is not expenditure that we should pay attention to.
    We have over the years over- concentrated our attention on how much has been spent through the ABFA, but I am of the opinion that in asmuchas GNPC is given allocation in excess of what is going to ABFA, it is equally important for PIAC to also focus their attention on how GNPC expends some of these amounts.
    Mr Speaker, I am saying this because I have consistently said that as a country, it is time we paid attention to what GNPC is using our oil revenue for, instead of us always giving them approvals and they coming back without giving us the expenditure returns. So I think that going forward, we should be interested in that.
    Mr Speaker, again, in considering the petroleum funds receipt, we were told that the amount of GH¢440 million, being the ABFA unspent amount would be captured in the Mid-Year Review. I am surprised to see the Mid-Year Review before us without the increase in the ABFA allocation. I think it is not acceptable.
    The Hon Chairman has just informed us that the Ministry has informed them that apparently, ABFA
    is no longer available. That cannot be accepted. It is Government revenue, and we want to know where the money is? We were told that that money is sitting in the ABFA account. Today they are telling us that that money is no longer available for expenditure, so what are they using the money for?
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance would probably have to clarify that matter. For me, I cannot accept that as an answer.
    Mrs Osei-Asare 11:45 a.m.
    On a point of order. Mr Speaker, what my Hon Member is saying is incorrect. We are not saying that the money cannot be found. What we are saying is that at the end of the year, it goes into the Consolidated Fund and it is swept, meaning that it is utilised in other equally important areas.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Member, that the money cannot be found is misplaced, if you could express yourself better. To say money cannot be found connotes that money is lost, but that is not so at all.
    Mr Forson 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the point is clear. It is the same Ministry of Finance that informed this august House that the GH¢440 million --
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Member, as you know, allocation of moneys also has a comparative analysis connotation and preference, so the Hon Minister may prefer if there is the need for an urgency somewhere to channel resources to another direction.
    I am only saying it is a matter of expression, so you may well express yourself and proceed.
    Mr Forson 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, with respect, unfortunately, the ABFA is different. The ABFA is restricted by law, and the law gives us what we should use the money for. My argument is simple.
    As part of the petroleum receipts during the debate, the Ministry of Finance informed us that they were going to account for the money that was unspent during the Mid-Year Review and increase appropriations for us to be able to spend the money.
    We said that if this Administration needs to spend money, we recommend that roads, for instance, requires some resources, so they should give the money to the Ministry of Roads and Highways for the purpose of fixing our roads.
    Mr Speaker, now the same Ministry of Finance that promised us that the money would be used during
    Mrs Osei-Asare 11:45 a.m.
    On a point of order. Mr Speaker, for my Hon Colleague to say that the money is no longer available, he is misinforming the House.
    It is called Annual Budget Funding Amount, so at the end of the year we utilise it elsewhere in the same places that we are supposed to utilise oil revenue. So it cannot be that the money cannot be found. The money has been utilised in the same sectors that have been approved for oil revenues to be utilised.
    So my Hon Colleague cannot say that the moneys cannot be found.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Member, proceed with some other argument.
    Mr Forson 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just want to assure the Ministry of Finance that I will follow this matter to its logical conclusion --
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Hon Member, you may so do, but for now, proceed.
    Mr Forson 11:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the matter concerned is something that all of us should be interested in. All I can say is that yes, the Report was done by PIAC showing us how our oil revenues have been used.
    PIAC has pointed out a number of concerns. One includes the fact that there is over-concentration of the use of oil revenue for consumption.
    They also pointed to the fact that the Ministry of Finance is not spending the ABFA that we are making reference to, and a portion of that amount is still sitting in the ABFA account.
    Mr Speaker, now we are told by the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance that that amount has gone into the Consolidated Fund for expenditure. What I can say is that going forward, I will file a Question to find out what is happening for the Hon Minister to come and account to all of us.
    Thank you Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker 11:45 a.m.
    Very well.
    Question proposed.
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would have two from each Side, including Hon Leaders. I would call on the Hon Buah. After that, Leadership would contribute.
    Hon Member, please, you may proceed.
    We have a tall order of Business, so we should not waste time.
    Mr Emmanuel Armah-Kofi Buah (NDC -- Ellembelle) 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I thank PIAC and the Finance Committee, for this important Report.
    Mr Speaker, in paragraph 5.1, which is on page 2 of the Report, it is very clear that all that the NDC Government has been saying all along is true. The diligence and the hard work of the NDC Government has enabled this current Government to see increase in oil production.
    According to this Report, there was increase in oil production in 2017. Again, from this Report, we are able to confirm that gas production has increased. This is very important because we had argued that for the whole period that the NDC Government was in power, they dealt
    with only the Jubilee Field. They had certain challenges, and as a result, production dropped to about 80,000 barrels.
    Mr Speaker, it is confirmed in this Report that the Government of President Akufo-Addo has been able to produce 200,000 barrels a day. We could therefore confirm that in terms of oil receipts; US$977 million plus; almost US$1 billion, is what is being accounted for in just 2018 alone. This is very important.
    If we look at the numbers and compare them with what this Government gains, then we should be able to see a lot of visible works. It is confirmed in this Report that Jubilee Fields, TEN and SGN, all produce oil now, but it was not so in the NDC Government.
    Mr Speaker, I would also take you back to the issue of gas and gas receipts. Ghana gas, Lean Gas and Condensates were able to get about an amount of US$85 million. What is however worrisome is that even as Lean Gas and the others continue to produce gas, we are informed in this Report that there are outstanding debts.
    Mr Speaker, in this Report, it is confirmed that the Volta River Authority (VRA), still owes Ghana
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Dr Akoto Osei, do you rise on a point of correction or on a point of order?
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are talking about the PIAC Report, and my Hon good Friend has made a categorical statement that he knows that in 2017, some of the moneys allocated to pay energy sector debts were used to pay pensioners.
    Mr Speaker, this is a House of records. If the Hon Member has the evidence, then he should table it. He cannot just make such an opinionated statement and expect us to swallow it.
    Mr Buah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would continue.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to refer the Hon Dr Akoto Osei to the PIAC Report of 2017. -- [Interruption.] It is in the PIAC Report of 2017, which was an official document that came into this House.
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Member, please be calm.

    Hon Member, you are out of order. Hon Buah, please, proceed and conclude.

    I rule that what you said be expunged from the records.
    Mr Buah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would take you to page four of the Report, which talks about the disbursement of the ABFA. With reference to physical infrastructure and service delivery in education, I would say that we must reflect on what we are doing to ourselves. We have had a lot of discussions on how the oil money is being spent.
    Mr Speaker, if we look at the disbursement on road, rail and other critical infrastructural development, we realised that an amount of GH¢255 million was spent. If we look at physical infrastructure and service delivery in education, an amount of GH¢419 million and over was spent. However, an amount of GH¢414,643,349.65 was spent on goods and services in education alone. What is instructive is that we spent only an amount of GH¢5,227,662.79 on capital expenditure, which is equivalent to 1.25 per cent.
    Mr Speaker, are we therefore surprised when students sit -- [Interruption.] We spend our oil
    money on only consumables. That is the future we are creating for our people --
    rose
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Member, please, respectfully, we should not turn this debate into a shouting match.
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we act by our laws. This House approved an Act that said that the majority of the oil money should be spent on public investment. It did not say capital expenditure, but public investments.
    The Hon Member, as an Hon Member of this House, should know what public investments are -- The Hon Member is misleading this House. He gives the impression that much of the money is supposed to be spent on capital expenditure.
    Mr Speaker, if the Hon Member does not know the law, he should be informed. Education is an investment in human capital.
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Member, you may respond.
    Mr Buah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that the Hon Dr Akoto Osei is completely misleading this House. My submission is very clear. This Government had a choice, whether to
    Mr Buah 12:05 p.m.


    invest in goods and services or in capital expenditure. However, I submit that for this Government to have spent an amount of GH¢414 million on consumables, as opposed to an amount of GH¢5 million on physical infrastructure --
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Member, Order!
    You should not use these approaches. You have been challenged on a matter of public expenditure, so, please!
    Again, that is a very important term of art in public finance. You should therefore respond to that, and show if you are able, that something has been spent out of that context of public expenditure. If not, then you should conclude and sit down.
    Mr Buah 12:05 p.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, the point I seek to make is that; yes, this Government has given priority to agriculture --
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Member, we are speaking of public expenditure here. I would want you to establish, if you could, that the expenditure, is outside public expenditure.
    Mr Buah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, how could I respond to something I have not said? I have not said that. I rather said that our priorities are not what I support. Given the opportunity, I will not spend GH¢404 million on consumables. I will spend it on physical infrastructure.
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Member, yes, you are talking about preference here. Do not speak as if the preference of somebody else is not public expenditure.
    Mr Buah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am expressing my opinion and my view is that, if I am given GH¢419 million, looking at the country right now where children sit under trees -
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Member, we all appreciate the technical terminology. So please, speak within those parameters and let us not engage in the shouting that much. Let us be academic.
    Mr Buah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the expenditure is within the established parameters but under our circumstance right now, if we spend 1.2 per cent on capital expenditure and almost 99 per cent on consumables, I think we are making wrong choices. The decision to spend
    GH¢404 million on basically buying food and allowing party apparatchiks to supply food on our oil money is a wrong approach. It does not inure to the future of our children.
    Mrs Osei-Asare 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that goods and services component is for Free SHS. So, if he is telling the House and Ghanaians that spending on Free SHS is consumables, then I do not know what he is talking about.
    Mr Speaker, the goods and services on education is expenditure on free SHS and not consumables. This is building human capital. It is not consumables but expenditure on Free
    SHS.
    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Buah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have been very careful not to bring in the term “Free SHS”. I have been very careful but now that the Hon Deputy Minister has brought it, let us talk about it.
    Mr Speaker, let us talk about Free SHS. I can argue that professors and educationists have called on the government to let us sit down and look at the approach, whether what you are doing is right.
    The concept of Free SHS is correct but let us approach it in a way that it
    would be beneficial to the people of Ghana. Have we seen how the standards of our education have collapsed? Is she telling me that because of Free SHS, we should use all our oil moneys to pay school fees for MPs here who can afford? She should not even start.
    Are they spending all our moneys on consumables for affluent people who can buy lunch for their children? [Interruption] --
    Dr A. A. Osei 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I strongly object to the statement that someone is using moneys to pay for my children's school fees. He said that school fees of MPs children are being paid for them. That is incorrect. That statement should be withdrawn. It is unparliamentary and a senior MP should not be using that language.
    Mr Buah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think I was making the point that the Free
    SHS -- 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Member, please, I have been advising against a certain mode; I am advising you further that it is moving you astray.
    Apologise and withdraw.
    Mr Buah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I withdraw and apologise.
  • [MR BUAH
    • Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Your concluding sentence. [Interruption] -- Please, those who are doing, “No! No!” let us talk as expected of us. I do not want to use words that are strong.
    Mr Buah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with all due respect, I withdraw and apologise. The point I was making is that --
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Member, make another point. [Laughter.]
    Mr Buah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, another important point I want to make is the issue of capping and its effect on GNPC. The point has been raised earlier. It is important that GNPC does not join the list of SOEs that, quite frankly, are already collapsed.
    Mr Speaker, it is also important to look at this Report. There was no allocation to the Ghana Infrastructure Investment Fund (GIIF). There was zero allocation. Is it the case that this government does not understand the importance of long-term investment and its impact on job creation?
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Member, please, once more, you are being - It is insinuating to say the government does not understand.
    Kindly conclude.
    Mr Buah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to thank PIAC for this Report.
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Members, should we proceed with intelligent arguments in this manner?
    Some Hon Members 12:05 p.m.
    No!!! [Uproar]
    Mr Speaker 12:05 p.m.
    Hon Member, conclude.
    Mr Buah 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let me quote from the Report:
    “The Committee observed that no allocation was made to the Ghana Infrastructural Invest- ment Fund”.
    It is important that I make the point that there is a good reason the GIIF was established. So, this year, PIAC is asking that there has to be investment in it. We should have our priorities right.
    Mr Emmanuel Kwasi Gyamfi (NPP -- Odotobri) 12:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you very much. I also beg to make some few comments on the Motion before this august House.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to start by commending PIAC for such a comprehensive work done. This is because PIAC has been given allocation now through the ABFA. That allocation has given them much more resources for them to undertake their regulatory assignment.
    Mr Speaker, if we look at the Report, as said by the Hon Ato Forson, it is very comprehensive and detailed. The presentation itself is very much of a standard. I believe that this House has done a very good job by giving PIAC adequate resources to undertake this important assignment. Going forward, the House should continue to increase the budget allocation for PIAC to support them so that they can continuously give us such a very good and comprehensive report.
    Mr Speaker, the issue of public investment came up at the Committee. The Committee was well educated about this particular issue. The Hon Majority Leader was at the meeting and the discussion that ensued from this comment by PIAC after the discussion was resolved. Spending in education where we have more than 100,000 of our children not being able to go to the next stage and yet this money is being spent to ensure that they get the quality education that they
    are supposed to get. It was one of the most important public expenditure that we need to do as a nation.
    Mr Speaker, we on this Side believe that the amount of over GH¢400 million spent to support the Free SHS is the right thing to do for the future of our children. [Hear! Hear!].
    Mr Speaker, the Report covered the activities of the GNPC Foundation extensively. I commend the GNPC Foundation for such a wonderful work done.
    rose
    Mr Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    I will not call those who have stood up on their feet.
    Yes Hon Member, you may intervene. Are you on a point of correction or order?
    Mr Jinapor 12:25 p.m.
    On a point of order. Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Mines and Energy Committee is grossly misleading this House. I was at that meeting.
    We had a heated debate as to whether to use oil revenues for the Free SHS Programme or not. So for him to stand before this House and

    tell us that it was resolved -- the word ‘resolved' comes from the word ‘resolution', -- that we concluded that those revenues should be used for that Programme, is inaccurate. I was in that meeting and we never resolved on that matter. I think it is proper he sets the records within the right perspective.
    Mr Gyamfi 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would not go back to the issue. [Interruption] -- But we on the Majority Side have resolved, -- [Interruption] -- that it is prudent for us to use that money to educate our children and the benefits to the nation will be great in the future. [Hear! Hear!]
    Mr Speaker, on the GNPC Foundation; the activities and the projects that they have executed through their corporate social Investments are commendable.
    I would want to caution that as far as we support the GNPC Foundation in undertaking such projects and activities, especially in education, sanitation and health, the Foundation should not be overcrowded with so much activities. They should consider their core mandate and continue to do that.
    Mr Speaker, last three months, your Committee on Mines and Energy made a study tour to the Western Region, especially Takoradi to inspect some of the works that have been done by the GNPC. The Committee was overwhelmed by the projects; the quality and the amount that they have spent to deliver such quality works.
    Mr Speaker, we also paid visit to a Rice Farmers' Association which the Foundation supports. The Committee was amazed at the enthusiasm with which the farmers received that support from the Foundation. I believe that it is something that we would need to encourage the Foundation to do more, especially to invest in agriculture which is key and dear to the heart of this nation.
    Mr Speaker, we also visited the Sekondi School for the Deaf. They have constructed a hostel facility for the school, which is a big relief to the school, because our children who are challenged had nowhere to lay their heads. The project will help the school to accommodate the students in that school.
    Mr Speaker, I would not spend much time to comment on the Report. PIAC has done good work and it is through the effort of this august House which allocated such good resources,
    Mr Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon Leaders, you may nominate or conclude yourselves; as you please.
    Mr Mutawakilu Adam (NDC - Damongo) 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to this Motion.
    Mr Speaker, PIAC did a very good job. They have proved beyond reasonable doubt that given the mandate, they would continue to deliver as expected.
    Mr Speaker, on Table 1 of page 4, you would realise that the total receipt amounted to US$977,093,285.23. Of this, about US$548 million which constitutes 56 per cent came from carried and participating interest. That indicates that going forward, it is important that our interest should be well concentrated on additional and carried interest. However, the recent Agreement that was brought to Parliament sought to undermine this position.
    Mr Speaker, you were here when the AGM Agreement was brought to Parliament. The stake of GNPC's Exploration and Production Company Limited (EXPLORCO) was 24 per cent and they renegotiated and reduced it to zero per cent.
    The additional interest of 15 per cent was reduced to three per cent until Parliament intervened to increase it to 10 per cent. This sent a signal that this Government is not willing to ensure that we have higher stake and that would deny this country of significant revenue in terms of hydrocarbons.
    Mr Speaker, when you go to GNGC, it raised an amount of US$85 million, knowing very well that it owes GNPC. It is expected that at least, they would have made some commitment to meet the obligations.
    However, in the Report, the Chief Executive Officer of the GNGC said it was exhausted for planned and unplanned programmes. If we do not curb this, I foresee GNGC making US$150 million and bringing a lot of unplanned programmes and exhausting it.
    It also came to light that the Auditor-General wanted to have access to the office of the GNGC, but he was denied. Even though the Chief Executive Officer indicated that they

    were not denied access, they were quite busy; We think it should not be encouraged. Access must be given to the Auditor-General to scrutinise the books of GNGC and do what the law mandates them to do.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 12:25 p.m.
    On a point of order. Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Ranking Member should be fair to the GNGC. The unplanned maintenance was explained; they had some pipes that suddenly broke down.
    Additionally, they said they had not closed their books to the Auditor- General and that following what occurred, they had invited him to audit their books. The Hon Member was at the Committee and this came to the fore.
    Mr Adam 12:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the issue of them being denied access was a fact. They went there but they were denied access.
    Two, when they mention ‘unplanned' without figures attached, it becomes very difficult to explain -
    Mr Speaker 12:25 p.m.
    Hon Member, let us not go into that. They were denied access in what manner? The Hon Chairman has explained the sequence of events and that should be sufficient. Let us not use words like ‘denied' because that has implications.
    Mr Adam 12:35 p.m.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr Speaker, the third issue in respect of the GNGC where VRA is unable to pay for gas consumed, is quite worrying. It undermines the ESLA that was passed for the purpose of revamping these State-owned enterprises in the power sector.
    It is expected that by now, these State-owned enterprises, such as the VRA, should be able to meet their obligations when they consume gas. It is only GNGC. Even from the Eni Ghana Exploration and Production Limited, since October, 2018 to March, gas has been consumed by the VRA to the tune of US$160 million and they have not been able to pay for it.

    All these add up to the debt in the power sector and energy sector.

    Mr Speaker, I beg to defer, when my Hon Colleague from the other Side of the aisle attributed everything in respect to “take-or-pay''. The “take-or-pay'', has nothing to do with the accumulation of debt in the power sector.

    Mr Speaker, with these few words, I support the Motion and I ask the House to adopt the Report.
    Mr Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Majority leadership?
    Mr Ameyaw-Cheremeh 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would yield to Hon Anthony Effah.
    Mr Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member, please, go straight to the point.
    Mr Anthony Effah (NPP -- Asikuma/Odoben/Brakwa) 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to support the Motion for the adoption of the Report of the Finance Committee on Report by the
    PIAC.
    Mr Speaker, before the PIAC Report came to this House, the Hon Minister for Finance had also submitted a similar Report on the Petroleum Funds in the Budget Statement. The observation was that there has been great consistency between the Reports presented by the Hon Minister for Finance and the
    PIAC.
    So there is a lot of credibility in this Report. The consistencies relate to liftings, revenues, allocations and utilisation. That is an important observation that I would like to state. There was also a lot of consistency and reconciliation with regards to the outstanding debts between and among the SOEs.
    Mr Anthony Effah (NPP -- Asikuma/Odoben/Brakwa) 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, one area that we consistently talked about is on the performance of the Petroleum Holding Funds. This year, the report by the PIAC indicated that the profit that yielded to the Petroleum Holding Funds significantly increased from about US$9.3 million which was reported in 2017, to US$15.75 million and this means there has been an increase of about US$6 million. This is worth noting because we have consistently argued that there could be alternative uses for these funds because the yields on them were low. However, once we have seen an increasing trend in terms of profitability of its investment, we should commend the managers of the Fund.
    Mr Speaker, a lot has been said about the performance of the GNPC Foundation and I particularly want to commend them because they nvested

    most of these moneys in agriculture, sports, water and sanitation, education and health. They have done so well and have to keep to their work.

    Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to quote the paragraph on the background of the Report which says:

    “…feedback received from the citizenry during the PIAC public consultations''.

    In the Report, we did not see what exactly the feedback from the citizenry was, except, for the consistency of the numbers, the liftings and the revenues, we did not read in any paragraph, with regards to feedback from the citizenry.

    So I would want to recommend that in subsequent PIAC Reports, specific paragraphs or pages could be submitted to this House so that we would have a feel of how the public thinks about the usage of the Funds that are allocated for the development of petroleum revenue management.

    Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity.

    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Mr Ameyaw-Cheremeh 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we may consider item listed 8 and then move on to item listed 9.
    Mr Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Hon Members, item listed 8.
    Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah) 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 80(1) which requires 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 Articles of Agreement of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) may be moved today.
    Mr Cassiel Ato Baah Forson 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Resolved accordingly.
    Mr Speaker 12:35 p.m.
    Item listed 9
    MOTIONS 12:35 p.m.
    AIIB 12:35 p.m.
    Mr Cassiel A. B. Forson (NDC -- Ajumako-Enyan-Essiam) 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion. In so doing I would state that it is laudable for Ghana to join this multilateral institution. One major benefit that we could get as a country, is the fact that we could use the AIIB for the purposes of providing government guarantees and resourcing infrastructure particularly from Asia.
    Mr Speaker, currently, infrastructural funding from Asia - for example China -- we rely heavily on Sinosure to give
    us guarantee in the form of insurance. So, approving this would mean that we would have the opportunity to have access through AIIB in the form of government guarantees to fund infrastructure.
    Mr Speaker, I am particularly not happy with Sinosure because we do not get enough government guarantees or insurance. You would recall recently that the Government of Ghana decided to sign on to the Sinohydro Agreement and under this Agreement, it was Sinosure that provided us with the government guarantee but for some reason, we are not seeing the progress of this very
    project. I do not know whether Sinosure has not yet signed on to this guarantee or insurance.
    Mr Speaker, but I have one concern which is, oftentimes as a country, we sign on to these multilateral institutions, pay up our subscriptions and then we become a member. Unfortunately, over the years, we have not benefitted much from some of these multilateral agencies that we pay so much subscriptions to.
    I think that it is about time we evaluated some of these multilateral institutions that we pay subscriptions to, on whether we are getting value for our subscriptions or not. This is not a political party matter; since the Fourth Republic, all of us have signed onto multilateral agencies, but I beg to say that I have not seen benefits that we could be proud of as a country.
    Not long ago, we subscribed to Africa 50 Infrastructure and we paid about US$50 million. We were promised that a lot of infrastructure would come into the economy on the back of Africa 50. Unfortunately, I have not witnessed any such infrastructure since the year 2015 when it was established.
    Mr Speaker, so, I would urge that inasmuch as it is laudable on paper, we should also access if we are getting value for the subscriptions that we pay.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    Mr Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon Member, thank you.
    Since there is consensus on this matter, I would want the Hon Leaders to nominate a contributor each for both Sides.
    Mr Richard Acheampong (NDC -- Bia East) 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I rise to support the Committee's Report and make some observations.
    Mr Speaker, just like the Hon Ranking Member has said, this is a very important vehicle that we could take advantage from to raise moneys for developmental projects in our country; because some loans that we seek from other countries and institutions appear to be very expensive.
    Sometimes we are even asked to raise counterpart funding and this becomes a challenge to the country so I think that this is something that we need to leverage upon and take advantage of.
    Mr Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon Member, you could discuss this without the --
    Please proceed.
    Mr R. Acheampong 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, so on spending about US$5 million to join AIIB, we could have at least, invested US$1 million in GIIF to also support other local industries to strengthen their base and give us infrastructural development.
    I think that this is a laudable idea and it would support our
    infrastructural development because we have a gap of about 80 billion if you compare us to the Asian communities. However, let us look back and do something to help our own economy before we spend US$5 million with the AIIB.
    Mr Speaker, with these few words, I would urge the Ministry to give us something meaningful so that in the 2020 Budget Statement, some allocations would be made to the GIIF to leverage on that for some developmental projects in our country. However, I think that it is worthy of support and a call on Hon Members to support the Motion.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity.
    Mr Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon Member, thank you very much.
    Majority side?
    Mr Daniel O. Aboagye (NPP -- Bantama) 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Motion on the Floor.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that this is a decision that has been well made by the NPP Government such that I consider it to be quite visionary and though we have allocated zero for now, we are interested in building
    Ghana. Ghana would benefit just like the many members who have already benefitted from AIIB -- I believe that it provides a lot of opportunities, markets for us and I am sure that if we leverage these opportunities, we would be able to bridge the gap in our infrastructure.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague who just spoke in reference to the PIAC Report made mention of the fact that we should begin to look at investments in Ghana with respect to infrastructure.
    However, I do not think that investment in education is consumption and for that matter, what our Hon Friends are now referring to as chop chop is naught.
    Investment in human resources is important and even when we look at infrastructure, I am sure that our record would beat that of our Hon Friends on the other Side, except to say that we have only been in power for about two years and we would develop Ghana. The way this President won was by over one million votes --
    rose
    Mr Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon Member.
    Mr Forson 12:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Report is for us to consider the Articles of Agreement on the Asian Infrastructural Investment Bank. We are talking about infrastructural investment fund, but he is talking about investment in education.
    Mr Speaker, he is not speaking to the subject matter and all of a sudden, he is talking about chop chop and one million votes.
    Mr Speaker 12:45 p.m.
    Hon Member, limit yourself to the context.
    Mr D. O. Aboagye 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was just --
    Mr Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Member, I do not accept that roundabout way when I rule. Take the cue, proceed and conclude.
    Mr D. O. Aboagye 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just want to say that --
    Mr Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Ignore what you were saying and say the next thing.
    Mr D. O. Aboagye 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the point here is that Government of Ghana's decision to join AIIB is a laudable one; it would give us the
    Mr Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Member, I thank you very much.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Item numbered 10, the Resolution thereof. Hon Minister?
    Mr Ameyaw-Cheremeh 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we seek leave for the Hon Deputy Minister to move the Motion for the adoption of the Resolution.
    Mr Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Please, proceed.
    RESOLUTION 12:55 p.m.
    Chairman of the Finance Committee (Dr Mark Assibey- Yeboah) 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the motion.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Resolved accordingly.
    Mr Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Hon Majority Chief Whip, can we proceed with item listed 11?
    Mr Ameyaw-Cheremeh 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes.
    Mr Speaker 12:55 p.m.
    Item listed 11, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    MOTIONS 12:55 p.m.
    Chairman of the Finance Committee (Dr Mark Assibey- Yeboah) 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 80(1) which requires
    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 First Demand Guarantee between the Republic of Ghana [represented by the Ministry of Finance] and Agence Francaise de Developpement of up US$199,800,000.00 relating to the Credit Facility Agreement (No. CGH 1109 01H) entered into between AFD and Ghana Grid Company Limited (GRIDCo) on 16th August, 2012 in an amount of US$173,900,000.00 for the construction of a 330 KV Kumasi - Bolgatanga Transmission Line and the 161 KV Volta - Achimota - Mallam Transmission Line Upgrade Projects being Implemented by Ghana Grid Company Limited may be moved today.
    Mr Cassiel A. B. Forson 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Resolved accordingly.

    Report of the Finance Committee on the First Demand Guarantee between the Republic of Ghana and Agence Francaise de Developement relating to a

    Credit Facility Agreement between AFD and GRIDCo for

    the construction of 330KV Kumasi -- Bolgatanga and

    161KV Volta -- Achimota -- Mallam Transmission Lines

    Upgrade Projects Implemented by GRIDCo
    Chairman of the Finance Committee (Dr Mark Assibey- Yeboah) 12:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that this Honourable House adopts the Report of the Finance Committee on the First Demand Guarantee between the Republic of Ghana [represented by the Ministry of Finance] and Agence Francaise de Developpement of up US$199,800,000.00 relating to the Credit Facility Agreement (No. CGH 1109 01H) entered into between AFD and Ghana Grid Company Limited (GRIDCo) on 16th August, 2012 in an amount of US$173,900,000.00 for the construction of a 330 KV Kumasi -- Bolgatanga Transmission Line and the 161kV Volta --Achimota -- Mallam Transmission Line Upgrade Projects being Implemented by Ghana Grid Company Limited.
    1.0 Introduction
    The first Demand Guarantee between the Republic of Ghana [represented by the Ministry of
    Finance] and Agence Francaise de Developpement (AFD) of up to US$199,800,000 relating to the Credit Facility Agreement (no. CGH 1109 01H) entered into between AFD and Ghana Grid Company Limited (GRIDCo) on 16th August, 2012 in an amount of US$173,900,000.00 for the construction of a 330 KV Kumasi — Bolgatanga Transmission Line and the (161 KV Volta— Achimota — Mallam Transmission Line Upgrade was presented to the House on Friday 26th July, 2019 by the Hon Minister responsible for Parliamentary Affairs, Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu on behalf of the Minister responsible for Finance.
    Pursuant to article 103 of the 1992 Constitution and Orders 169 and 171 of the Standing Orders of the House, the Agreement was referred to the Committee on Finance for consideration and report.
    The Committee subsequently met and discussed the Agreement with a Deputy Minister for Finance, Hon Charles Adu Boahen, and Deputy Minister for Energy, Hon Joseph Cudjoe as well as officials from the Ministries of Finance and Energy. Also in attendance were the Chief Executive Officer and other officials from the Ghana Grid Company Limited (GRIDCo).
    The Committee hereby submits this Report to the House pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House.
    The Committee is grateful to the above-mentioned Hon Deputy Ministers and the officials for attending upon the Committee.
    2.0 Reference
    The Committee referred to and/or was guided by the following document inter alia during its deliberations on the Agreement:
    The 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana;
    The Standing Orders of the Parliament of Ghana; and
    The Public Financial Manage- ment Act, 2016 (Act 921).
    3.0 Background
    The Government of Ghana received a credit facility of €26.0 million from the World Bank/International Development Association (IDA) for the development of infrastructure on the 330KV West African Power Pool (WAPP) Coastal Transmission Backbone Project. Part of the credit proceeds was applied towards the feasibility study, engineering study and
    Chairman of the Finance Committee (Dr Mark Assibey- Yeboah) 12:55 p.m.
    paid by GRIDCo to the Government of Ghana.
    6.7 Status of the AFD Credit Facility
    The Committee noted that the status of the AFD Loan Facility for which the Government Guarantee is to be issued is as presented in the table below:

    It was explained to the Committee that the loan facility would continue to be serviced by GRIDCo and that Government's liability would only crystallise if GRIDCo defaults in its covenant obligations.

    7.0 Conclusion

    The Committee finds the project to be immensely important towards ensuring enhanced capacity of

    GRIDCo to export excess power to neighbouring countries and to ensure stable power supply to the northern parts of Ghana.

    The Guarantee was also found to be necessary to ensure the resumption of loan disbursements by AFD towards the successful completion of the project.

    The Committee, in view of the foregoing, respectfully recommends to

    the House to adopt this report and approve by Resolution, the First Demand Guarantee between the Republic of Ghana [represented by the Ministry of Finance] and Agence Francaise de Developpement (AFD) of up to one hundred and ninety-nine million eight hundred thousand United States dollars (US$199,800,000.00) relating to the Credit Facility Agreement (no. CGH 1109 01H) entered into between AFD and Ghana Grid Company Limited (GRIDCo) on 16th August, 2012 in an amount of US$173,900,000.00 for the construction of a 330KV Kumasi- Bolgatanga Transmission Line and the 161KV Volta-Achimota-Mallam Transmission Line Upgrade in accordance with article 181 of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana and section 66(4) of the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921).

    Respectfully submitted.
    Mr John A. Jinapor (NDC -- Yapei/Kusawgu) 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion ably moved by the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Finance, Hon Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah.
    Mr Speaker, what we are doing today, as the Hon Chairman rightly said, is to provide a GCSA in order to enable this project to continue. This project was executed on 16th August, 2012. The main objective of this project was to ensure that we upgrade our 161 KV transmission line to 330 KV transmission line.
    The essence is to ensure that we have a robust resilient and strong transmission system with a formidable backbone that would ensure that power is transmitted to neighbouring countries in the form of exports.
    Mr Speaker, as I speak to you, by now, we should have completed this project. At the Committee meeting, it was made clear that if this project was completed, GRIDCo was assured of exporting 200 megawatts of power and could export additional 400 megawatts of power.
    Mr Speaker, why are we here today? Mr Speaker, it is important that as Hon Members, we interrogate these matters. This is because we are building a nation and making decisions that have far-reaching consequences and implications.
    Mr Speaker, if we look at page 3, it is well captured that because of the March tariff reviews, GRIDCo's transmission charge was reduced by
    Mr Isaac Adongo (NDC -- Bolgatanga Central) 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Motion before the House to provide guarantee to
    GRIDCo that would enable it to complete the project it started with the funding from AFD.
    Mr Speaker, the issues that we are confronted with now point to the difficulty in transiting from one Administration to the other. We have one Administration that is confronted with power challenges.
    That Administration says they are not only going to fix the problem for Ghana but they would take advantage of this challenge to ensure that they become a major player in West Africa so that they can use Ghana as a hub to not just generate power but make sure they export it in order to generate revenue.
    In doing so, that Administration decides to walk the talk by making sure that it accelerates the establishment of power plants that would give us a lot of power beyond what we need. But in doing that also, decides to engage in the level of activities that would promote the easy evacuation of the excess power in order to export that power.
    Mr Speaker, the project objective as outlined by your Committee's Report is quite clear and with your permission, I would like to quote 3.1:
    “The objectives of the Project which forms part of the WAPP Inter-Zonal Hub are to reinforce the transmission system in Ghana to ensure the export of at least 100MW of power to Burkina Faso, provide adequate power transfer capability for the interconnection to the Sahelian countries of WAPP including Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, to improve local transmission capabilities and to reduce technical and transmission losses.”
    Mr Speaker, this was not just for Burkina Faso, this was to ensure that beyond Burkina Faso, we can export power to the Sahelian region of Niger and Mali. But today, what are we saying?
    We are saying that that power is sitting in Ghana and as a result, if somebody is not able to see this vision, the one who had the vision to transform Ghana and generate the revenue is rather to blame for this incompetence and I cannot understand how anybody would blame H. E. John Dramani Mahama for having this vision.
    Mr Speaker, the issues that have led us to this are quite clear. We are giving an excuse (and I call it an excuse) that because we transferred
    Mr Patrick Y. Boamah On a point of order 1:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on page 3, the Committee made that emphatic point that those assets transfers affected the balance sheets of GRIDCo. We are not disputing that and he is saying that it is an excuse. It is contained in the Report. I do not understand what he is trying to imply.
    Mr Adongo 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if that was the case, we would not debate this. We would have just tabled it and we are gone.
    Mr Speaker 1:15 p.m.
    Hon Member, let us admit what is real. That is the Report of which you are part thereof. So if he points that out, operate within its parameters and let us move on.
    Mr Adongo 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was trained to understand that when an asset is financed through a liability, it automatically irons out and gives a zero balance because the liabilities are represented by underlying assets, and it would be a problem unless you can demonstrate to me that those assets are of no income generating power.
    The reason we are here now is because the capacity of those assets to generate the appropriate revenue has been compromised by the tariff reduction, leading to those assets not generating as much as they are supposed to generate. It is for that reason that their balance sheet begins to deteriorate. That is a technical position, and I do not see how that contradicts the Report.
    Mr Speaker, if you undertake steps that reduce tariffs such that the cost of operating these machines and generating the revenue is higher, and your revenue drops by about 31 per cent, you would definitely have a problem.
    The history of this transaction was quite clear. In 2012, we were told that GRIDCo was making so much profit. They had a much stronger balance sheet, and on the basis of that, AFD was comfortable to rely on GRIDCo's own balance sheet to grant the money. Today, AFD is saying that under the
    current circumstances where the balance sheet has deteriorated, it would need a fall-back position from Government. We are now moving away from a direct credit to GRIDCo to Government now guaranteeing and facing the possibility of having a contingent liability.
    Mr Speaker, that has to be reversed by appropriate pricing that would ensure that we get value for these entities, otherwise we would be back to the same problem.
    Mr Speaker, the revenue flows as already indicated clearly show that if GRIDCo is able to complete this job, Ghana would be able to evacuate even for Burkina Faso alone about 400 megawatts.
    If we now assume what Mali would be requiring, nobody would be talking about “Take-or-Pay” because the power would now be enough to be exported, and Mr John Dramani Mahama would have delivered a vision that would change the face of Ghana for so many years.
    Thank you Mr Speaker.
    Mr Anthony Effah (NPP-- Asikuma/Odoben/Brakwa) 1:15 p.m.
    I thank you Mr Speaker.
    I also rise to support the Motion before the House. In doing so, I would like to indicate that the reasons for the request for the bank guarantee appear very reasonable, where transfer of liabilities including outstanding loans have been moved from VRA to GRIDCo. This should be very acceptable to all of us. The second is the tariff reduction by
    PURC.
    The impact has been severe on the financial performance of GRIDCo, and it is the reason AFD has decided to suspend additional disbursement.
    Mr Speaker, the provision of this guarantee would enable AFD to extend the facility disbursements deadline, and this would enable the contract to progress even further. Noting that this contract is already at 88 per cent completion, I believe that there would not be the need to delay further this project, as further delays could even increase the total cost of the project.
    I understand from the Report that should this guarantee be provided, in 2019 the project would be completed.
    Mr Speaker, the cash flow issue has been mentioned, where a completion of this project would about triple the cash flow revenues to
    Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu) 1:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let me thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of the Motion.
    In doing so, I refer you to page 3 of your Committee's Report. I may have to read or quote so that I can substantiate my argument.
    Mr Speaker, it reads 1:15 p.m.
    “GRIDCo signed a direct credit facility with AFD on 16th August, 2012 for an amount of US$173,900,000.00 without Government Guarantee”.
    Now we are being called upon to give a government guarantee. Why? The answer is there.
    Mr Speaker, it says 1:15 p.m.
    At the time of the direct credit facility agreement, GRIDCO's operating model was satisfactory, despite the build-up of receivables with its major customer, the Electricity Company of Ghana (ECG). Since 2017 however, GRIDCo's financial situation has deteriorated because of the inclusion of additional assets (and related debts) that were transferred from the Volta River Authority (VRA) at end 2017 and the major utility tariff review by the PURC in March 2018 which decreased the Transmission
    Service Charge (TSC). These actions reduced the revenue of GRIDCo by about 31 per cent and led to breaches of the financial covenants the Company signed with the AFD.
    Mr Speaker, that is why we are saying that we should respect the sanctity of contracts. Yourself, a good lawyer, you know the principles and values of the law of contract. Government is now saying that provide a guarantee to GRIDCo on the basis of the Government's own action to reduce the transmission earnings of GRIDCo.
    What Government must be doing is, why did you review this downwards? Because the Report goes on to read:
    As a consequence of the breaches of the covenants, the AFD has suspended disbursements under the credit facility even though the project had not been completed and contractor's outstanding certificates amount to US$30 million.
    So what is occasioning the necessity of Government coming to this Parliament to provide a guarantee? It is the basis of a Government action which in my view does not make economic sense. That downwards
    review of 31 per cent -- first of all, we are even providing disincentives to contractors.
    The Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation knows the standing of AFD. They are supporting even roads in Kumasi. They are supporting many development initiatives on behalf of the French Government.
    Government is a continuum. We behave as if transitions only happen in 2016 and 2017. You have been there, we have been there, so if a project was commenced in 2012, because government is a continuum, today it is you. You are supervising that. You need not come to Parliament for a guarantee if you did not tamper with what is described here as the transmission service charge (TSC).
    So those who are assisting the President must go back to the TSC, whether its reduction was justified, and whether it is not more expensive to provide this kind of collateral, than if GRIDCo was to service it with their own charges. That is how it should be.
    Mr Speaker, we decoupled the power sector to allow for more efficiency and independence. As we speak today, Government owes GRIDCo at least not less than US$250 million.
    Mr Speaker, it says 1:25 a.m.
    So Mr Speaker, that would be my comment. My next comment would be on convenience. We are told why Government is using a corridor through Bolgatanga and not through Han in the Upper West Region. We know that it is a distance challenge.

    Mr Speaker, we could tell that it is a challenge of distance. From Techiman, if we would want to use that route to go to the Upper West Region, it is longer than if we travelled from Kintampo to Tamale, using the Tamale-Bolagatanga route.

    Mr Speaker, finally, during Mid- Year Review, the Hon Minister for Finance came here and presented his report, and bastardised the previous administration over energy and excess capacity. We are told in this Report that this administration exports at least a hundred megawatts of electricity to Burkina Faso.

    In fact, it could even be upped to 400 megawatts. We do not export waste. That cannot be described as waste; something that we have the capacity to export to the Sahelian countries could only be beneficial to our country, and we should be encouraged.

    Mr Speaker, apart from the fact that it provides us with energy security, it also gives us an opportunity to export. Yesterday, I quoted what the President said when he was in London, and when he went for the inauguration of the Burkinabe President. He happily said that Ghana was happy to be exporting energy.

    However, the Hon Minister of Finance comes to this House, and creates the impression that the “Take- and-Pay” was an offensive economic energy intervention. This Admini- stration started it. It was done in conjunction with Asogli and the others. Therefore, in principle, this helps with transmission.

    Mr Speaker, we have three challenges in the energy sector --
    rose
    Mr Speaker 1:25 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Dr A. A. Osei 1:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, instead of the Hon Minority Leader saying “Take-orPay”, he said “Take- and-Pay”. He should therefore correct himself. [Laughter.]
    Mr Iddrisu 1:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, appreciated.
    Mr Speaker, GRIDCO makes an amount of US$4 million annually from
    the sale of power to Burkina Faso. That should be increased to an amount of US$10 million to US$20 million, giving the excess generation capacity.
    Mr Speaker, excess generation is not a wrong thing, and could not be a wrong thing. It provides security for energy availability, for industry, and for ordinary consumers.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity. I however think that the Ministry of Energy should look within, instead of coming back for collateralisation from Government. Why did we then decouple the power sector? After decoupling it, would we now want GRIDCO to come for a guarantee from Government? No! That is not the sense.
    Mr Speaker, in the record of the 2017 Budget, we were told that the energy sector debt was an amount of US$2.7 billion. However, in yesterday's mid-year review, we saw a paragraph that quoted an amount of US$2.7 billion. Despite this fact, when the President went to London and the United States (US), he said that he had halved the energy sector legacy debt. The energy sector debt cannot be an amount of US$2.5 billion and US$2.7 billion at the same time.
    Mr Speaker 1:25 a.m.
    Thank you very much, Hon Member.
    Hon Majority Chief Whip, do you have any further Business?
    Mr Anim 1:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would yield to the Hon Dr Nana Ayew Afriyie.
    Mr Speaker 1:25 a.m.
    Hon Member, your final words.
    Dr Nana Ayew Afriyie (NPP - Effiduase/Asokore) 1:25 a.m.
    I thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to reiterate the fourth paragraph on page 3 of the Report.
    Mr Speaker, it says 1:25 a.m.
    “At the time of the Direct Credit Facility Agreement, GRIDCO's operating module was satisfactory, despite the build-up of receivables with its major customer; ECG.”
    Mr Speaker, it goes on to say 1:25 a.m.
    “…since 2017 however, GRIDCO's financial situation has deteriorated because of the
    Mr Speaker, it goes on to say 1:25 a.m.
    inclusion of additional assets and related debts that were transferred from VRA as at the end of 2017, and the major utility tariff review by the
    PURC”.
    Mr Speaker, the question also is on the related debts of the VRA. It is reported by Citi News that as of July 2016 the VRA, a State owned institution, owed banks an amount of US$1.1 billion.
    Therefore, as we talk about the debts which was offloaded to GRIDCo, it is clear that GRIDCo was faced with a lot of enormity of liabilities in this regard. However, a sensitive Government; a sensitive regime, had they would have no option, at a certain time than to reduce tariffs on power because of the enormity of complaints from private sector, industries, and from domestic users.
    I do not think this decision by Government, ordinarily, would have been taken, but as a sensitive regime, it had no option than to bite the bullet. They had no option than to sympathise with the policy of my friends on the other Side, who are supposed to be in a social democratic philosophy oriented system.
    Mr Speaker, therefore, trying to take a decision that would cost GRIDCo in itself, brought a marginal benefit, which was relief to Ghanaians. It was not a bad decision, and I would want to reiterate that.
    Mr Speaker, the concept is right. The transmission of power according to GRIDCo, had been faced with a lot of losses, and therefore, the project in itself is an adequate power transfer capability to enhance its capacity to reduce the losses and generate net export ability to the neighbouring countries.
    Mr Speaker, yes, some decisions are difficult to take, and such was the decision to reduce the tariff. However, to every decision, there is a cost. It is either you weigh in benefit to cost and the cost of it is in fact what we are facing with the inability for the project to have continued.
    However, overall, it was in the interest of Ghanaians for Government to have taken that decision as of that time. Therefore, the Government, and for that matter the NPP Government, needs to be applauded for their ability to recognise the feelings of the people.
    Mr Speaker, having said so, it was not a political decision, but an economic decision for Government to bring the relief that Ghanaians needed.
    We suffered it, but we suffered it in the interest of the Ghanaians.

    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Mr Speaker 1:25 a.m.
    Hon Members, we would move on to item numbered 13 -- Resolution.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Finance Minister, permission has been granted you already, so you may proceed.
    RESOLUTION 1:25 a.m.
    THIS HONOURABLE 1:25 a.m.
    HOUSE HEREBY RE- 1:25 a.m.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Resolved accordingly.
    Mr Anim 1:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we may take item numbered 16.
    Mr Speaker 1:25 a.m.
    Hon Members, we would take item numbered 16 -- Motion, on the Third Reading of the Statistics Bill, 2018.
    Yes, Hon Minister for Finance?
    rose
    Mr Speaker 1:25 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Minority Leader?
    Mr Iddrisu 1:25 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was going to invoke Standing Order 131. I saw the Hon Minister rise, to which you granted her the authority on behalf of the Hon Minister for Finance, to move for the Third Reading.
    I must however admit that at the last Consideration Stage, I did not participate. I tried to get the Table Office to brief me on it. I trust that at the completion of the work, we would be consistent with article 190 of the 1992 Constitution.
    Mr Speaker, I would just read it to guide the Hon Minister. I do not know if it was done. When we read the Bill, the Long title says -- I said that I was not part of the Consideration of the Long Title.
    Mr Speaker, it reads 1:35 p.m.
    “An Act to establish the Statistical Service as the central statistics production and coordinating institution of the National Statistical System and to strengthen the production of quality statistics in accordance with the United Nations fundamental principles on statistics -the African Charter on statistics, the international best practices, and for related purposes.”

    Mr Speaker, article 190 of the Constitution lists the Public Services of Ghana which includes, the Statistical Service. Therefore, whatever we are doing must be consistent with article 190 of the Constitution.

    Mr Speaker, more importantly, even in the Mid-Year Budget Review, if we go to the acronyms and abbreviations, generally we always say, “GSS”.
    Mr Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Minority Leader, thank you very much. My attention has been drawn to paragraph 28 on page 19 of the Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 24th July, 2019.
    “Long Title -- Amendment proposed - Delete and insert the following: “AN ACT to establish the Statistical Service as the central statistics producing and co-ordinating institution for the National Statistical System and to strengthen the production of quality statistics and to provide for related matters.”
    That was ultimately adopted.
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader raised concerns about the Short title and not the Long title. He said that the short title should read; “The Statistical Service Bill”.
    That is the concern he has raised. I will urge that we stand this one down. The Long Title has been amended but the Short title has not, so, let us stand it down and then clear it up by tomorrow.
    Mr Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Also at paragraph 26 on page 18 of the Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, 24th July, 2019;
    “Short Title -- Amendment proposed -- Delete and insert the following:
    “The Statistical Service Bill,
    2019”
    (Alhaji Inusah Abdulai Bistav Fuseini) Question proposed: Debate arising.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.”
    Dr Assibey-Yeboah 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that being the case, then the Motion on page 9, item numbered 16 should read:
    “That the Statistical Service Bill, 2018 be now read the Third time.”
    Mr Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Yes, we could do that amendment right now. The Statistical Service Bill, 2018. The amendment is effected accordingly.
    If the Hon Minister would now move the Motion.
    BILLS - THIRD READING 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Very well, in view of the time and Business before the House, Sitting would go on beyond the prescribed hours.
    The Hon First Deputy Speaker will take the Chair.
    Yes, Hon Deputy Majority Whip, where do we move from here?
    Mr Anim 1:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we will take item numbered 17; University of Business and Integrated Development Studies Bill, 2018 at the Consideration Stage.
    Mr Speaker 1:35 p.m.
    Hon Members, we would now proceed to the Consideration Stage.
    Item listed 17, University of Business and Integrated Development Studies Bill, 2018 at the Consideration Stage.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 1:35 p.m.
    STAGE 1:35 p.m.
    MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:42 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee, clause 5?
    Mr Quaittoo 1:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5 subclause (1), add the following new paragraphs after paragraph (g):
    “(h) one representative of the regulatory body responsible for regulating tertiary education not below the rank of a Director nominated by the Minister;
    (i) one representation of the Junior Staff Association of the University elected by the Association.”
    Mr Darko-Mensah 1:42 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that the clause 5, paragraph (h) should be entirely deleted because we can never have a regulatory body playing the role of a coach and a player at the same time. The University Council is the executive body armed to implement whatever decisions that might be coming from these same regulatory bodies. Therefore, I find it very difficult to accept that we need to put this clause in particular or

    making a member of the regulatory body, a member of the University Council. I think that this whole clause should be deleted, and therefore, I do not support this amendment moved by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Yes, I would want to hear other views on this matter. Hon Minister for Education, you just walked in but this is an important matter.
    Yes, Hon Chairman let me hear you first.
    Mr Quaittoo 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that following from the amendment that we did to the C. K. Tedam University of Technology and Applied Science Bill, 2018 these are the amendments that we did to clause 5. So, I should have even gone back.
    In subclause 1, paragraph (c),
    “…three persons, nominated by the President, at least one of whom is a woman;”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    First, let us deal with this proposed amendment. Or you would want to withdraw it as the Hon Member suggested?
    Mr Quaittoo 1:45 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    I think that I even put a question mark on that amendment that was ascribed to me. Going through what we did for the C. K. Tedam University of Technology and Applied Science, as the Hon Darko-Mensah puts it, paragraph (h) should not appear, because there has been changes.
    So, I would withdraw that amendment and then we would look at what we did for the C. K. Tedam University of Technology and Applied Science and bring it --
    So, we would amend subclause 1(c) first. We would insert ‘at least' between ‘President' and ‘one'.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    So, it will read: “…three persons, nominated by the President, at least one of whom is a woman.”
    Mr Ahmed Ibrahim 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, are we referring to the deletion of paragraph (h) as moved by Hon Kwabena Okyere Darko- Mensah?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    He has shelved that amendment now. He would propose a new one. What I will put the Question on is the insertion of ‘at least' between President and one in clause 5 subclause 1(c).
    Mr Quaittoo 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, let us follow what we are doing to clause 5; there are a lot of amendments to --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Let me finish with subclause 1(c). I will put the Question again on subclause 1(c).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, now do you want to withdraw subclause 1(h)?
    Mr Quaittoo 1:45 p.m.
    Rightly so, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Very well.
    Dr Matthew Opoku Prempeh 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I sympathise with my Hon Colleague if certain amendments were made. But as with all the public universities, there is a member from the regulatory authority, who is part of the Council. So, I think we should take the amendment, but by the time we reach the Second Consideration Stage or by the time we finish the
    An Hon Member 1:45 p.m.
    Address Mr Speaker Dr Prempeh -- to ensure that policy decisions are followed?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    Let me go to the back before I come to the Leaders.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Dr Robert Baba Kuganab- Lem 1:45 p.m.
    Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity. Just like the Hon Minister said, in all universities in Ghana, the National Council on Tertiary Education is on the Council. They are responsible for the budget. If Government wants pay or recruit staff, the National Council on Tertiary
    Mr Darko-Mensah 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I still disagree because they are the regulators. Before then, their regulation was more confined. There is no way the NCTE can give directives that the university councils will not comply. They are not on the Board to tell them that their budget is GH¢50 million and they use GH¢70 million.
    If they are given the directives, they would comply. My problem is that there cannot be a regulator, a referee and a player at the same time. If there are issues in the University, will they say that NCTE or the regulatory body is the problem? Who will they blame if the universities are not performing to certain standards? Will the University or the representative on the Board be blamed?
    Mr Speaker, if we look at CHASS, they are an affected institution. Therefore, if they are on some of the Boards, it is all right. But the fact that other universities have them, I believe that we could use this one to stop and next time, when we are doing the omnibus university law, then we could make sure that these things are also implemented in the new one. For now, this is what we are working on. So, we can use it to stop the bad governance practice that this has been engendering over the period.
    Mr Samuel Ayeh-Paye 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, they will give a representative to serve on the Council; they will not operate the University. So, I disagree with the Hon Western Regional Minister's position. They will nominate one person to serve on the Board. They are not to manage the University; not a member of the management committee -- [Interruption.] Executive Council is just like a board. I think the amendment should stay.
    Mr A. Ibrahim 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the best form of control is when there are internal auditors, even though there would be external auditors who would audit. So, their presence on the Board will serve as a check to ensure that things are streamlined before the regulator comes in. Even though they represent the regulator or they are
    nominated by the regulator, they would make sure that there is conformity within, so that even when the Council goes astray, things are not done and then later, the regulator comes to do a post-mortem. I totally agree that we should not delete the amendment. Their presence will be important.
    Hon Minister, if we delete it, practitioners would blame us. In the same way, some academics argued about Hon Members of Parliament's presence on certain boards.
    Mr Speaker, do you support that position or you do not? If yes, it would be the same position -- [Interruption.] Sometimes, some Hon Members are nominated to represent us. -- [Interruption.] So, we should not think about academia then we bring some impediments on the path of others.
    Mr Speaker, I agree that they must be present on the Council.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:45 p.m.
    I will hear from the last two and then I will put the Question.
    Mr Patrick Yaw Boamah 1:45 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the issue has been over- flogged. I support the Hon Chairman's position.
    Mr Quashigah 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the augments that have been adduced by the Hon Deputy Minority Chief Whip, as well as Hon Colleagues on the other Side of the aisle. Clearly, all the public universities we have in Ghana, have representatives from the National Council of Tertiary Education, so why must this one not have it. In the interest of uniformity, we should just admit that that should be the way to go. Other than that, this would obviously appear to be very different from the other public universities.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5 subclause (1), paragraph (i), delete and insert the following:
    “an industry expert nominated by the Association of Ghana Industries”.
    Dr Prempeh 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I hope we could retain what is in the Bill, for a very good reason. It is not only the Association of Ghana Industries that represents industries -- there is the Ghana Chamber of Commerce and others but we have to ensure that the person would come from the industry
    Mr Quaittoo 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, honestly, a lot of winnowing has gone on and what I should have done was to send what we agreed on to the Table Office to capture it in the Order
    Paper, because I have the result of the winnowing captured in pen on my Order Paper. What I read from the Order Paper, during the winnowing was dropped as the Hon Minister for Education said. So, if we could put a hold on clause 5.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, please, move your preferred amendment and let us deal with it. Which amendment do you prefer?
    Mr Quaittoo 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is how it was earlier captured:
    “one person with expertise in business and integrated development studies nominated by the Minister''.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:55 p.m.
    At this stage, we only discuss amendments, so if that is what you want to move, move it, so we could discuss it.
    Mr Quaittoo 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the amendment in the Order Paper should be replaced with:
    “one person with expertise in business and integrated development studies nominated by the Minister''.
    Mr A. Ibrahim 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I disagree with the new proposed amendment and to propose that we maintain what is in the Order Paper for good reasons.
    Mr Speaker, what is in the Order Paper says 1:55 p.m.
    “an industry expert nominated by the Association of Ghana Industries.''
    This is a recognised association of members within the country and beyond that we have University of Business and Integrated Development Studies Bill. The question has always been asked about how to bridge the gap between industry and academia therefore, having a member of the Association of Ghana Industries on the University Council would even help to bridge this gap.
    Mr Speaker, I have no challenge with the Hon Minister nominating the person but my interest is when the Association of Ghana Industries is represented in a University Council, any meeting that they attend would help to bring them closer.
    The direction, the kind of human capital they need and the kind of people they need to train and all the institutional memory would be transferred from the Association of
    Ghana Industries' meeting to the University Council through that representative. If we say “an industry expert nominated by the Minister”, we live in a country where a person does a short course and says he or she is an expert in a particular field without any practice.
    So, let us give them the opportunity and feed on their institutional memory and use them to bridge that gap. We should not make it omnibus to say that an industry expert nominated by the Minister. It makes it a bit vague. So what is in the Order Paper is the best.
    Mr Quashigah 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a lot of wisdom in what the Hon Member who spoke before me said. The Hon Minister for Education also made a very important intervention which we need to examine carefully, because it is clear that we do not have the Association for Ghana Industries as the only entity that shepherds captains of industries in the country -- he mentioned the Chamber of Commerce. So, if we give this mandate to just the association, what would happen to the Chamber of Commerce -- and that is where the challenge is.
    I support the position that it would be better in the hands of those in the industry than the Minister, but in a
    Mr Darko-Mensah 1:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Minister for Education, except to say that the experts to be nominated by the Minister should belong to any of the business or industry association, so that we would be clear and not have a portfolio expert who would run around and the Minister would know and nominate, so that we would be sure that the person is in practice and has the full backing of his association.
    If he is nominated and it would also cure the issue of whether the person comes from the industry or just a “portmanteau” expert or businessman. We should just do a small alignment to ensure that the Minister could nominate the person but the person should come from any of the business associations because there is the Chamber of Commerce, Association of Ghana Industries, the Chamber of Mines, the Chamber of Tele-
    communication and a whole lot. We should be clear on that so that the Minister could still do the nomination but could still choose that person from any of these associations. So, we could do a little bit of adjustment to the wording.
    Mr Edward K. Dery 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, much as I would agree with the Hon Minister, I thought that this was discussed at length at the Committee level and we agreed that the members of the association should nominate a representative. So, for us to come today and say that the representative should be appointed by the Minister -- I have a doubt here simply because the association members know who is qualified to play a certain role.
    That is the reason we requested that there should be a representative from that association. Today, we are saying that the Minister should appoint that person. What then would be the role?
    Mr Speaker, I would plead with you, that let us maintain what is in the Order Paper. Thank you.
    Mr Nortsu-Kotoe 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, although I was part of the Committee that made the recommendation for that amendment, I am inclined to
    Dr Prempeh 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, except to say that if we just leave it as it is in the Bill we would not get the nominee. Then who would do it? Mr Speaker, so, like my Hon Colleague said, if we would leave it then we have to qualify it. As the Hon Member for Takoradi said, then it has to come from somebody who is represented in one of those chambers that deal with business.
    So, as the Minister would nominate, he would ensure that that person is fit to represent one of the recognised chambers and associations in the country.
    Mr Speaker, that is all I am saying; it is not about who would do it. Mr Speaker, if you would recall, in some Bills we listed about four or five of such associations and said that they should be rotated among those associations. [Interruption.] I am just giving an example that in some Bills we stated “Ghana Muslim Mission”, “Catholic Bishops
    Conference” and so on where we said that it should rotate among them. Mr Speaker, but if we just leave it as an industry expert, then it implies to what the Hon Ranking Member just said.
    Then it would be the Minister who would compile the nominations and might not make reference to somebody who belongs to any of the chambers. So, if we say that the person must belong to a recognised association of business industry then that would restrict the Minister to consult and get a better person to represent.
    Mr Quaittoo 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that we should drop this amendment and consult further because in the C. K. Tedam Bill, we made this same amendment in the Order Paper, but we dropped it and consulted further. It was the decision from that consultation that was finally put in that Bill, and that is also what I am proposing here, but Hon Members are still kicking against it.
    Mr Speaker, I would propose further amendments based on the winnowing that we had. As the Bill stands now, there is no member from Convocation and we would need to consider that, but in the Order Paper there is also an amendment to bring in junior staff associations. But in the
    Dr Prempeh 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we do not have that time and we do not have to finish the Bill. Even though I do agree with you, either I would plead with you to get the Hansard -- [Interruption.]
    But it has to be published so that Hon Members would know and be able to support you. If you just say that like we did in the C. K. Tedam Bill, but Hon Members do not have it, then it might mean the Mr Speaker would have to suspend Sitting.
    We would not have the time, but if you think that you have it here then state it when you rise, so that we could move. But if you continue making reference to the C. K. Tedam Bill then nobody has it here except you. So, just rise and state what we did then we could move on.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    Hon Member for Wa West.
    Mr Chireh 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I suggested the amendment to reflect what is here -- that “an industry expert nominated by the association of …”
    Mr Speaker, I did not say that -- “the relevant regulatory body”.
    Now, if we look at the nature of the university, it is business and law. And so if there is a business expert or any person in business, they have an official institution which is a Federation.
    However, I hear the Hon Minister arguing that it would be nebulous, but it is the Minister who would write to that institution that is officially recognised and deal with government, to send the relevant person. Now, because we want this university to be business-oriented or law-oriented, then that expert should be related to the university.
    Mr Speaker, what I am saying is that with the issue of the Minister nominating, the practice has been that it is the Minister who should constitute it. So, he would collect all the names from the various agencies and send them for approval by the President. So, who to nominate must
    not be the issue, but the issue is that the person must be a relevant person.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:05 p.m.
    No. If you ask me, the real issue is that whether he should let a representation of Association of Ghana Industries or not? In my view, that is their only issue. As for who would nominate, it is a matter of who the Minister would
    -- 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Ahiafor 2:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe strongly that the proposal by the Hon Minister is in the right direction. I was with the Committee
    and when we were considering this particular provision, we realised that it is nebulous because who would do the nomination.
    So, the decision of the Committee was that the nomination should be done by the Association of Ghana Industries. Mr Speaker, but in view of the fact that there are several associations, there would be practical difficulties as to who should do the nomination.
    Mr Speaker, so, if in nominating the representative the Minister would take into account the various associations that we have, then I strongly believe that if the power is given to the Minister to do the nomination then we would maintain the rendition as it is and add the nominations being done by the Minister.
    This would go a long way to resolve all the issues.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, item numbed iii, clause 5?
    Mr Quaittoo 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 5 subclause(2), line 2, delete “(a) and (c)” and insert “(a), (c) and (i)”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, so propose the deletion. As for the numbering, we would leave it to the draftpersons.
    So Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 5, subclause (1), paragraph (e), delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman, you may continue with your amendment.
    Mr Quaittoo 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, now, on item iii, I would propose that the draftpersons look at it and rearrange them because paragraphs (a) and (c) are of course nominated by the President. Paragraph (i) may change, and so whatever numbering; the “nomination by the Minister” should be but that paragrapgh should be added.
    I would therefore propose, clause 5, subclause (2), line 2, delete (a) and (c) and insert (a), (c) and the appropriate letter for this.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Mention those that are to be deleted and those to be inserted.
    Mr Quaittoo 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we are going back to clause 5, we may have to look at subclause (1) because the number 11 may change depending on what we have got.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Is this amendment only to correct numbering?
    Mr Quaittoo 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, this amendment is to correct numbering.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Very well. So I direct the draftspersons to do the proper numbering arrangement, subsequent upon the amendments done.
    Is that the end of clause 5?
    Mr Quaittoo 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have another amendment to make to clause 5. There was the concern that there was no member from convocation, and so we should include a member from convocation as a member of the Board.
    And so I propose that we add another subclause “one person elected by convocation”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    One person from where?
    Mr Quaittoo 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, one person elected by convocation.
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we would have to look at the number again because normally, the number is left odd. Adding one number, if it would not make it an even number, we must check that before we move on.
    Dr Prempeh 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would plead that you order that this particular clause be taken further down the line to make sure that the
    numbers are right in view of the amendments done. Then your attention would be drawn to it for us to go ahead.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Are you suggesting that we defer putting the Question on clause 5 as amended to be part of the Bill.
    Very well, I would defer putting the final Question on clause 5. Do whatever cleaning you have to do and come back to me.
    Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 8 -- Meetings of the Council
    Mr Quaittoo 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8 subclause (2), line 1 delete “nine” and insert “eight”.
    Mr Ahiafor 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, because of the proposal by the Hon Chairman that we should defer the question on clause 5 to be able to know the actual composition, we need to stand down this amendment because we need to know the number composing the Council to determine the issue of quorum. This is because, the quorum in clauses 5 and 8 must move together.
    Mr Quaittoo 2:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the number would remain the same because we deleted (e) and inserted “a member from convocation” But for clause 5, paragraph (i), we just changed the rendition and added “by the Minister”. And so the number remains the same.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:15 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Wa West?
    Mr Chireh 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, on the issue of the number, if you look at the Explanatory Memorandum, it talked about 11. If you look at the Explanatory Memorandum of the C.
    K. Tedam University of Technology and Applied Sciences Bill, it talked about 16, but actually listed 11.

    The composition as he is saying, if we stood down anything in clause 5, what was it in respect of? Was it that we did not know who should be or we do not know the number? We can look at it. It is because we were now deleting paragraphs (a), (c) and others which are really renumbering issues or else, we are deleting those that are appearing. They are not part of the Council. If we are not dealing with that, then by this time, we should know the number of members for the Council.

    Otherwise, we cannot fix this. The reason we always fix this -- [Interruption] the Hon Minister for Education was talking about Interpretation Act. No. The Interpretation Act does not talk about quorum. What we have been guided in this House to do is that if we have an odd number and we want meetings to be successful, it should be more than half. Just one or two more than half of the number.

    However, if we do not know the number as my Hon Colleague is saying, let us determine it, and that is something that the Committee should have told us. What is it that they are doing?

    When I first saw the membership, I changed it which they are now saying that some do not exist again, which is a different matter. If we have them then it should be clear. If we look at the Memorandum, they talk about clauses 5 to 12 dealing with governance of the University; providing for the University Council and the governing body. It also says that they consist of 16 persons. So, unless we are saying that we should deviate from the 16 and that is where I added a few more to make it an odd number.

    That is why now, I am confused because I was also not here when they completed work on the C. K. Tedam University. So if we want uniformity, fine. If we want equivalence, that is what should be guiding us. Let us look at what the Memorandum says.
    Mr Quaittoo 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is still 11. We only amended -- [Interruption.] Of course, we added (h) in the amendment in the Order Paper -- “one representative
    of the body responsible for regulating tertiary education”. So, this moved it up to 12. Then we took out (e) and replaced it with “convocation”. So it is still 12.
    Mr Ahiafor 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I strongly believe that the Interpretation Act is a statute of general application and I want the Hon Minister to know that it is in the absence of express provision in the law that the Interpretation Act comes to play. Therefore we have been making provision for quorum with every law that we make in this particular House.
    However, the point I am making is that clause 5 determines the number in relation to which would determine a quorum. So while clause 5 has been deferred for further consultation, I believe that we should do that particular consultation to determine the membership of the Council. Then, a conclusive decision can also be taken on clause 8, which is on the quorum.
    Dr Prempeh 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I hope that if we listen to the Hon Chairman, we would reach there. He is saying that the number is 12 and we should add one to make it 13 and then we would decide on the number and move. --[Interruption.] Yes, and I am saying that I propose that the people nominated by the President,
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    So should we defer this or take a decision?
    Mr Quaittoo 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the first amendment, (i) had two amendments but it looks like we only concentrated on the (h): “one representative of the regulatory body responsible regulating tertiary education…”
    Then, there was (i): which we did not look at -- one representative of the Junior Staff Association of the University elected by the Association.
    Dr Prempeh 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague himself said that in doing the C. K. Tedam University Bill, we deleted that one -- the House did not even accept it. So why is he bringing it back? So when voted, he did so because (ii) had been deleted and we are standing with (i).
    Mr Quaittoo 2:25 p.m.
    Then it means that the number becomes 12 now.
    Dr Prempeh 2:25 p.m.
    That is why I am saying that the number nominated by the President is the easiest. Let us
    make it four and amend (c) and let us go.
    Mr Quaittoo 2:25 p.m.
    No, I disagree.
    Mr Speaker, in the C. K. Tedam University Bill, they added this 2:25 p.m.
    “one alumnus from the University elected by the alumni of the University”.
    That was there and we can add it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    So, are you adding that?
    Mr Quaittoo 2:25 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, I am amending it. I propose that we add that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    To which clause -- 5?
    Mr Quaittoo 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 5.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    So move that we add that to clause 5.
    Mr Quaittoo 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 5, add a new paragraph:‘one alumnus of the University elected by the alumni of the University'. This is because that is not there.
    Mr E. K. Dery 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would plead that we stand this down. If we look at the request -- even what they proposed, for instance Federation of University Senior Staff
    Association Of Ghana (FUSSAG), my understanding is that FUSSAG does not represently exist. Then the Employers Association representative should also not be there. So that is, the Ghana Employers Association Representatives -- was part and the FUSSAG requested that those should be deleted.
    So even at the Committee level -- when talking about C. K. Tedam -- [Interruption.] No, we agreed 15, 15 in both cases. Now, he is saying that it is 13.
    Mr Speaker, so can we stand it down so that we can do a bit of -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Hon Dery, I am not getting you. Which clause or subclause are you referring to?
    Mr E. K. Dery 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am referring to the composition of the members of the University Council.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    That is clause 5.
    Mr E. K. Dery 2:25 p.m.
    Yes Mr Speaker.
    .
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Which subclause are you referring to?
    Mr E. K. Dery 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am referring to the representative
    from the Ghana Employers Association. FUSSAG should be out of the list. That is the request.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    Which one is the Ghana Employers Association? I have not seen it and that is why I am confused.
    There is a representation of the Federation of University Senior Staff. That has been deleted. So which other one about employers?
    Mr Nortsu-Kotoe 2:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he is referring to a different document. I think that if we look at clause 5 again, with the amendment that we have made so far, the number is now 12. So with the proposed amendment that we add the “alumni”, that would make it 13, then we can move --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    That was what I was putting the Question on when I was interrupted.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:25 p.m.
    The draftspersons would properly capture the amendment.
    We were dealing with clause 8, is that right?
    Mr Quaittoo 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, may I then seek your leave that you put the question on clause 5, since it is now conclusive?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Very well.
    Clause 5 as amended ordered to stand part of the bill.
    Mr Quaittoo 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,
    Mr Speaker, I withdraw this amendment, because now the membership is 13. So we maintain the nine.
    Mr Ahiafor 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Chairman to abandon the amendment. The reason for reducing it -- [Interruption.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, we have abandoned item (iv).
    Mr Ahiafor 2:35 p.m.
    It is good for the House to know the reason.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    It is important for the record.
    Mr Ahiafor 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is good for the House to know the
    reasoning and it is important for the record.
    When the membership was nine, the Committee was of the view that nine being the quorum was on the high side, so now that the membership has been increased to 13, nine is in order, hence the Hon Chairman was right in abandoning the amendment.
    Mr Quaittoo 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I seek your leave to do further amendment to clause 8. There is only one advertised amendment --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    There are two advertised amendments, on page 10. Deal with them before you go to any other.
    Mr Quaittoo 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8 subclause (8), lines 1, and 2, delete “ its own procedure” and insert “ the procedure from meetings of the Council”.
    Mr Ahiafor 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Chairman in the sense that we always avoid the use of the possessive.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, which further amendment did you want to do?
    Mr Quaittoo 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 8 subclause (1), let us look at line 2. The rendition there reads; “The Council shall meet at least three times in each academic year for the dispatch of the business at the time and in the place determined by the chairperson”.
    I beg to move, that we change the first “the” on the second line to “a time and in a place determined by the chairperson”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 8, subclause (3), in line 1, we are to delete the word “each” and replace it with “a”, so that the new rendition reads:
    “The chairperson shall preside at a meeting of the Council, and in the absence of the chairperson, members of the Council shall elect one of the nominees of the President…”.
    In the first one, the person should be present at the meeting. That is what is missing.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    Make your amendment clear. You seem to be arguing with yourself.
    Mr Quaittoo 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, they are arguing with me.
    The first amendment is to replace the word “each” with “a”, and then in line 4, we bring “present” between “President” and “to”.
    Mr Nortsu-Kotoe 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at the rendition, I think it is better in the form in which it is, so at ‘each meeting of the Council'. That is what we have been accepting all the time, so changing it would create a problem for even interpretation.
    So I urge my Hon Chairman to abandon that amendment.
    Dr Prempeh 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would implore the Hon Chairman to abandon his amendment so that we can move on.
    Mr Quaittoo 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, again there is another amendment.
    After paragraph 8, the amendment is this, because statutes always go with the university:
    “Subject to this section, the Council may by statutes of the University regulate the pro-
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    The “Statutes” is not acceptable. We have stopped legislating in plural. The only part of the current rendition that I agree with you is “its own procedure”, but “Subject to this section, the Council may by Statute regulate procedure” is appropriate. You do not have to add anything to “Statute”.
    Dr Prempeh 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this ‘Statute' does not need an “s”. What we need to probably add is; “Subject to this section the Council may by Statute regulate …”
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    So what is the agreed rendition, so I can put the question?
    Mr Quaittoo 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it should read; “Subject to this section, the Council may by Statute regulate the procedure for meetings of the Council”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:35 p.m.
    I think we can direct the draftpersons to make the appropriate rendition.
    Mr Quashigah 2:35 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 8(3), where we talked about “the chairperson shall preside at each meetings of the Council, and in the absence of the chairperson, the members of the Council shall elect one of the nominees of the President…”.
    I am a bit worried in the sense that if a quorum needed at the meeting would be nine, and it should so happen that the Chairman and all three nominees of the President are absent, it would mean that the meeting would not come on?
    Dr Prempeh 2:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, in our political parties, if the Chairman does not call for a meeting, it would probably not take place.
    Mr Speaker, it is found in every university's law, and the reason is simple. The chairman of the University Council is an appointee of the President, so if that appointee is not there, the only person who is capable of assuming that position is another nominee, appointed directly from the President.
    This is done in all university councils. It is not an anomaly, but proper. All the other members represent a body or something in the university. The President's nominees, are the only external members of the Council.
    Mr Kpodo 2:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the position taken by the Hon Minister is perfectly in order. Indeed, it is the prerogative of the President to appoint a chairman for the Council. We could therefore not take it away from him.
    If none of his nominees is present at the meeting, the Registrar or the other members are advised to call off the meeting until they could get at least one of the President's nominees to be there. This is because of policy reasons.
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to propose an amendment to clause 8(3). I propose that after the word “shall”, we delete “elect” and insert “nominate”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would then read 2:45 a.m.
    “The chairperson shall preside at each meeting of the Council and in the absence of the chairperson, members of the Council shall nominate one of
    the nominees of the President to preside.”
    Mr Speaker, at a meeting, an election could be controversial, and it may take the time of the council members. However, in the case of nomination, one of the members could nominate any of the President's representatives, and it could be seconded by another person, to make it simple. I therefore propose that we change “elect” to “nominate”.
    Mr Ahiafor 2:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would urge the Hon Ayeh-Paye to drop his proposed amendment.
    If we talk about nomination, it means that an entity or an individual would do the nomination. Over here, we would want the members present to exercise their discretion in choosing who should be the chairman. So, it cannot be by nomination, but by election.
    Mr Chireh 2:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want my Hon good Friend to know that deliberations on the road sector are over -- [Laughter.]
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 a.m.
    Hon Member, you are out of order.
    Mr Chireh 2:45 a.m.
    The point is that in the composition of the council, it was required of the President to nominate
    Mr Ayeh-Paye 2:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I withdraw my amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 a.m.
    Hon Members, on that note, I would put the Question on clause 8.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr Quaitoo 2:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is a last amendment on clause 8, which is on page 10.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 a.m.
    I directed that the draftspersons effect that amendment.
    Mr Kpodo 2:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to seek further clarification on clause 3. We realise that the members of the Council present, are to elect one of the nominees of the President
    to preside. I would want to know; are they still nominees? Once the President has given out their names, and they have been sworn in and taken office, they become appointees.
    Therefore, when we continue to use the word “nominee”, it appears that they are now going to be subjected to some approval somewhere.
    Dr Prempeh 2:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, per the Constitution, once the Council is sworn-in, every member is automatically appointed by the President. -- [Interruption.]
    Under article 70, every member of the Council is appointed by the President. However, on the Council, there are two different categories of appointees; those who were nominated by the President and were appointed, and those who were nominated by the respective bodies of the Council.
    Therefore, the representative of the University Teachers Association of Ghana (UTAG), for instance, would be nominated by them. The Students Representative Council (SRC) would also nominate their representative.
    It is only the President's nominees, who are appointed by the President
    himself, and it is only one of them that could preside if the chairman is not there.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:45 a.m.
    Hon Members, we should proceed. We have so far spent one hour on only two clauses.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 8 as variously amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 9 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 13 -- Principal Officers of the University
    Mr Quaittoo 2:45 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 13, subclause (2), line 1, before “as” insert “and oath of secrecy”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 2:45 a.m.
    “The Principal Officers of the University shall, before assuming office, take and subscribe to the oath of office and oath of secrecy as specified in the Schedule.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 13 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 14 -- Chancellor of the University.
    Mr Quaitoo 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move,clause 14 subclause (3), line 1, delete “the chancellor”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read 2:55 p.m.
    “The Chancellor is the head of the University and takes precedence over the other officers of the University.”
    Mr Speaker, we are removing the second “the Chancellor”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 14 subclause (4), line 2, before “Statutes” insert “the”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 14 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 15 -- Vacancy in the Office of the Chancellor
    Mr Quaittoo 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 1, after paragraph (d), add “(e) incapacitation”.
    In other words,
    “The Office of the Chancellor shall become vacant on (e) incapacitation”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Hon Members; the lawyers, is “incapacitation” an appropriate word? What does that mean?
    Yes, Hon Ranking Member of the Committee?
    Mr Nortsu-Kotoe 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think this is not an originally proposed amendment. How do we measure the level of incapacitation before we determine that one should be removed from office?
    I would want to suggest to the Hon Chairman of the Committee to drop that amendment and go by what is in the Bill.
    Dr Prempeh 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, especially since we have clause 15 (2) which states, with your permission I beg to quote:
    “The grounds and procedures for the removal of the Chancellor from office shall be specified in the Statutes of the University”.
    If we can define “incapacitation”, that is where it should go and not here.
    Mr Quaittoo 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the C.K. Tedam University of Technology and Applied Sciences Bill, 2018, this amendment was made by the Hon Majority Leader and the Minister for Education was seated right by him. We did it together.
    With incapacitation, the person could get an accident and cannot work.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    I understand what you have in mind but the way we are capturing it -- [Interruption.] I am trying to find a similar rendition in the Constitution relating to the Office --
    Mr Boamah 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the person is unable to perform his functions as stated in the law. Incapacitation has different levels.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee, I am waiting. If you insist, I will put the Question.
    Mr Quaittoo 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is an amendment that I am proposing. If it is not accepted by the House, let us let it go. He was not here when we did the final consideration on the C. K. Tedam University of Technology
    and Applied Sciences Bill, 2018. It was moved and accepted.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2:55 p.m.
    I am looking at the term of office of the President in articles 66 and 67 of the Constitution:
    “66(3) The office of the President shall become vacant --
    (a) on the expiration of the period….
    (b) if the incumbent dies or resigns from office or ceases to hold office under article 69…
    (4) The President may, by writing signed by him, and addressed to the Speaker of Parliament, resign from his office as President.
    (67) The President shall, at the beginning of each session of Parliament and before…”
    So, “incapacitation” even in the case of the President does not appear. When the President is unable to perform his duties, that is where the Vice President or the Rt Hon Speaker comes in. So, let us not introduce new vocabularies into our legal lexicon.
    I think we should drop it. That is my view.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 16 -- Vice-Chancellor of the University
    Mr Quaittoo 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 16 subclause (4), line 1, delete “three” and insert “four”.
    The rendition will be:
    “The Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for a term of four years and is eligible for re-appointment for another term only.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 16, subclause (8), delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have another amendment on clause 16.
    I beg to move, clause 16, subclause (2), at the end add, “in accordance with the Statutes of the University”. This will read:

    “The Council shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor for the Univer- sity in accordance with the Statutes of the University.”

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 16 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 17 -- Pro Vice-Chancellor of the University
    Mr Quaittoo 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 17, subclause (5), lines 1 and 2, delete “the Council or the Vice-Chancellor shall determine” and insert “specified in the Statutes of the University''.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition will be 2:55 p.m.
    “The Pro Vice-Chancellor shall be assigned duties as specified in the Statutes of the University.”
    Dr Prempeh 2:55 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want the Hon Chairman to think through the proposed amendment. Some universities have two Pro Vice-Chancellors for example the University of Ghana. If he says that their functions should not be expanded to include what the Council says and that they should
    Dr Prempeh 3:05 p.m.
    In the University of Ghana, Legon, one is in charge of research, and another is in charge of something totally different.

    So, even if we would consider it, we should add “as the Council may also determine''.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    How would the Council determine -- that is where the Statutes come in.
    Dr Prempeh 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if there are two deputies and one is in charge of Administration and Finance and the other is in charge of legal, then if the managing director is not available and we do not give the power to the Council to let one act for the Vice-Chancellor, then there would be a problem.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    The Council has all the flexibility of it to determine what should happen if both or one is not available. We should not leave it to be decided at the meeting. That would be ad-hoc.
    Dr Prempeh 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree to the Statutes but it should be ‘‘the Council and as the Statutes decide'' because when we define it suo moto, then there would be the Pro Vice-Chancellor in charge of Research as the Statutes say and the Pro Vice-Chancellor in charge of Administration.
    So, if the Vice- Chancellor is not available, it is the Council that should appoint and let the person assume the full powers because the person's powers would be restricted by the appointment letter which comes into the Statutes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    Hon Minister that is not a problem.
    Dr Prempeh 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree but we should not leave it to “only the Satutes and as Council may determine''.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    No, the Council shall determine only if it gives itself that power by Statutes. The Statutes should define all the regulations and arrangements so that there would be no room for ambiguity.
    Everything must be coded in the Statutes and that should be done by the Council. They should define all the areas are -- [Interruption]. If we
    leave it, the parameters may change depending on which persons or personalities. That is why I think we should not add to “as determined by the Statutes''.
    Mr Quashigah 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is much wisdom in the proposition that ‘'it should be determined by the Statutes''. If we leave it to personalities and if there is a situation where there are two Pro Vice-Chancellors and one is not liked by certain reasons, then it would no longer be a fair process to whoever would step in.
    All these should be determined by the Statutes -- so that if it says that the Council should determine who steps in or the Pro Vice-Chancellor of Administration or Research should be the one responsible, that would be compulsive and fair.
    Dr Prempeh 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 17 (6) says:
    “The Pro Vice-Chancellor shall perform the functions of the Vice-Chancellor in the absence of the Vice-Chancellor''.
    But there are two Pro Vice- Chancellors so who will do what? There are circumstances that the Statutes would not define but the Council should be given the power to
    Mr Quaittoo 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the Vice-Chancellor is not available, he would hand over to the next person in line --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    That should be defined by the Statutes; the Statutes should be arranged such that there is no ambiguity or vacuum.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Agbodza 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to find out from the Hon Chairman of the Committee whether it is a standard rendition to have the Vice-Chancellor serve for four years but the Pro Vice-Chancellor for three years? If not so, we should amend clause 17(3) to read:
    “…..a term of four years…''
    Unless it is a standard thing that some serve three years and others serve four years.
    Clause 17 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 19 -- Composition of the Academic Board
    Mr Quaittoo 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, subclause (1), paragraph (g), delete.
    Mr Speaker, the reason is that all the members mentioned in this subclause have their representatives above.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 19, subclause (2), line 1, delete “an ex-officio” and after “Board” insert “by virtue of office”.
    Mr Speaker, “an ex-officio'' should be replaced with ‘‘a'' so that the new rendition would be:
    “A person who is a member of the Academic Board by virtue of office may be represented at a meeting by a person designated by that member''.
    Dr Kuganab-Lem 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in clause 19 (1) (g), which says:
    (g) a representative each of
    (i) an Academic department;
    (ii) a School;
    (iii) an Institute; or
    (iv) a Centre;
    This is very crucial because clause 19 (1) (c) and (e) are heads of the academic departments. If a head of department goes for an academic board meeting --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:05 p.m.
    Hon Member, you were not paying attention. The Hon Chairman of the Committee said that it was only a repetition because they have been mentioned earlier and that is why they are being deleted.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 19 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 20 -- Committees of the Academic Board
    Mr Quaittoo 3:05 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 20, subclause (1), line 2, delete “its functions” and insert “the functions of the Academic Board” and in line 3, delete “enacted by the Council”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be 3:15 p.m.
    “The Academic Board may establish standing and ad-hoc committees for the purpose of carrying out the functions of the Academic Board under this Act and as may be determined by the Statutes''.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 20 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 21 -- Functions of the Academic Board
    Mr Quaittoo 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 21, paragraph (d), delete “authorise” and insert “recommend”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a further amendment for clause 21.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 21, paragraph (c)(ii) insert “diplomas and certificates”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, subclause (2), at end, add “in accordance with the Statutes of the University”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaitto 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22 subclause (7), delete “operating” and insert “administrative”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22 , subclause (8), line 2, before “as” insert “and oath of secrecy”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 22, add the following new subclause:
    “The Registrar shall hold office
    (a) for a term of four years and is eligible for re-
    appoint-ment for another term only; and
    (b) on the conditions specified in the letter of appointment in accordance with the Statutes of the University.”
    Mr Speaker, so this would become paragraph 9.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    Where is Hon Kpodo, he made all these arguments the last time.
    Mr Agbodza 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at clause 22(3) -- “The Registrar shall hold office on the terms and conditions specified in the letter of appointment”. So, why are we saying that -- [Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker, so, if the Hon Chairman of the committee could reconcile subclause (3).
    Mr Quaittoo 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I actually have an amendment for the deletion of subclause (3), but it was not advertised.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    Then let us finish with the current amendment and then you would move that one.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 22, subclause (3) delete.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Prempeh 3:15 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just want to draw your attention to clause 32 which talks about what the Council of the university would prescribe in the Statutes of the University. Mr Speaker, it says “… regulate the following in respect of the employees of the University”. The second one is the conditions of service and we always add ‘as determined by Fair Wages and Salaries Commission'.
    Mr Speaker, if we do this then we would see that what we have done here is probably superfluous because the conditions of service of everybody in the university must be determined by the Fair Wages and Salaries Commission. Mr Speaker, but you have put the Question and so let us continue.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:15 p.m.
    I am sure when we get there --
    I would put the Question on the entire clause 22 again.
    Clause 22 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 23 -- Director of Finance
    Mr Quaittoo 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 23, subclause (1), delete and insert following:
    “The Council shall appoint a Director of Finance for the University who shall perform functions as prescribed in the Statutes”.
    Mr Speaker, I have a challenge here because in this case, I think that both subclause (1) and (2) should be deleted because the new rendition would capture both.
    Subclause (1) says that “The University shall have a Director of Finance”.
    (2) The Council shall appoint the Director of Finance for the University”
    Mr Speaker, (3) also states
    “The Director of Finance shall perform functions as prescribed in the Statutes of the University.”
    If you look at the new rendition, it captures all the three, but to me, if we allow subclause (1) “The University shall have a Director of Finance” to stay, then the new rendition shall take care of subclauses 2 and 3.
    Mr Quaittoo 3:25 p.m.
    Subclauses (2) and
    (3).
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Very well.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Item numbered 17 (xxi)?
    Mr Quaittoo 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that has even been dealt with. It says, “Subclause (2), delete.” And we have already deleted that. So we are dropping that amendment.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    But have we done the insertion in item numbered 17(xx)?
    Mr Quaittoo 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we did the insertion when we deleted subclauses 2 and 3.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Very well. So item numbered 17(xxi), then, has been overreached.
    Mr Quaittoo 3:25 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Then we go to item numbered 17(xxii).
    Mr Quaittoo 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause , add the following new subclause:
    “The Director of Finance shall hold office
    (a) for a term of four years and is eligible for re- appointment for another term only; and
    (b) on the conditions specified in the letter of appointment in accordance with the Statutes of the University.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 23 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 24 -- Appointment of other staff
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee, there is no amendment proposed. Do you want to add or subtract anything?
    Mr Quaittoo 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, exactly so. I just want to add.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, “in accordance with the Statutes” at the end of the clause.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 24 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Now, Hon Leaders, I intend to suspend Sitting for an hour. Yes, what sayest thou?
    Mr Moses Anim 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we can take just clause 25 to end the session. Then we can suspend for an hour and come back.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Yes, Leadership of the Minority, what do you say?
    Very well. So we would take clause 25 before we suspend.
    Clause 25 -- Internal organisation of the University
    Mr Quaittoo 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 25, subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 3, before “hostels” insert “Halls of Residence” and in line 4, delete “in the Upper West Region”.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Do you not conceive of a government's university with only hostels and not
    halls? Must we necessarily import halls of residence?
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Ranking Member?
    Mr Nortsu-Kotoe 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Committee has not finished with the proposed amendment. If he could complete it. The proposed amendment is that, “Subclause 1, paragraph (a), line 3, before “hostels”, insert “Halls of Residence” and in line 4, delete “in the Upper West Region”.
    This is because it is proposed that the University might have campuses in other regions. So it is not necessary to keep the “Upper West Region” there.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 25 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    At this juncture, Sitting is suspended and would resume at 4.35 pm prompt.

    3.33 p.m. -- Sitting suspended.

    5.37 p.m. -- Sitting resumed.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, any guidance?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we shall continue with the Consideration Stage of the University of Business and Integrated Development Studies Bill, 2018. I understand we got to clause 25, so I guess we can continue from there.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Hon Members, the University of Business and Integrated Development Studies Bill, 2018 at the Consideration Stage.
    BILLS -- CONSIDERATION 3:25 p.m.
    STAGE 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Hon Members, I recall we got to clause 25 before the House went on suspension.
    Hon Chairman, shall we go to clause 26.
    Mr Peter Nortsu-Kotoe 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before we go there, I want to draw our attention to something in clause 5 (1): “The governing body of the University is a Council consisting of 11 members…”
    Mr Speaker, we have made the membership 13 so there is the need for us to do an amendment there.
    Mr Quaittoo 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so, I think it was mentioned. Before we put the question to it, we said it should be changed to 13.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, are you saying that the question was put on clause 5, subclause (1) to be 13 and not 11?
    So that has been done already. Are you sure about that?
    Mr Quaittoo 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am sure about that. So a question was put on the whole clause.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    But was it amended to 13 instead of 11 members?
    Mr Quaittoo 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it was. We concluded on the 13 before he put the Question to it.
    Mr Chireh 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we look at the Bill, the memorandum on page (ii) mentions the membership to be 16 persons. When I made some proposals to the Committee, I amended that portion of clause 5, subclause (1) to say that it should be 17 members.
    Whereas they were mentioning 16 and the other Bill that has been passed, which is the Navrongo campus one, there they were talking about 11. Meanwhile, they listed more than that in the actual Bill.
    So this afternoon when we were doing clause 5, I insisted that the Committee should change the 11 because the Memorandum was in contradiction to what was provided and they had left out alumni, junior common room and all that.
    I was not here when the Navrongo one was dealt with extensively but I changed that. I recommended to the Committee that it cannot be 11 members because of what is happening. So I do not know how the Committee could not accept my amendment yet they accepted part of it and the number is still 11. It could not have been.
    The Hon Chairman said that the amendment was taken and agreed upon at a membership of 13. The
    Memorandum talks about 16 but you agreed on 13.
    Mr Quaittoo 3:25 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker. This is because the Bill itself contained 11 initially and we amended it to 13 today by deleting one member and including three new members. So it went to 13 and the question was put on it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Well, we would let the Table Office crosscheck from what has been agreed upon and then our attention would be drawn and if there is the need for us to go back to it later on, we could do so. But let us start with clause 26.
    Clause 26— Funds of the university
    Mr Quaittoo 3:25 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it looks like it was not captured by the Table Office so I would propose that amendment now or as proposed by the Hon Ranking Member, you can put the Question to it that 11 should be changed to 13 in clause 5, subclause (1). I so move, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:25 p.m.
    Hon Members, we just crosschecked from the Votes and Proceedings and it has not been taken so we would have to take the clause again.

    to move, clause 5, subclause 1, line 2, delete “11” and insert 13.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 5 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 26 -- Funds of the University
    Mr Quaittoo 5:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause(1), paragraph (b), subparagraph (i), delete “ duly registered by” and insert “of”.
    So the new rendition reads; “Fees paid by students of the University”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 5:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause (1), paragraph (b), subparagraph (v), delete “grants”.
    Mr Speaker, it is so because the paragraoh on “grants and loans” is also a new proposal in the next amendment, but I guess we could just maintain it and add “loans” to that sub- paragraph.
    Mr Speaker, rather I am amending this amendment. We should rather maintain “grant” and insert “loans”, between “grants” and “subscriptions”, so that if we come to item (xxvi) where we are now to add a new subclause, the loans would have been captured on top already.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:47 p.m.
    What I understand the Hon Chairman to be saying is that “grants” is put in the wrong category. It should be with loans and not with subscriptions, rents and royalties. We are being called upon to delete “grants” from clause 26(1)(b)(v) and create a new subclause, which would now read “grants and loans”, to be properly numbered.
    So I put the question on both.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 5:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 26, subclause (2), line 1, delete “ by or” and in line 2, delete “by or” and at end of line 3, add “and with the approval of the Controller and Accountant- General”.
    So subclause (2) would now read;
    “any sum of money received on behalf of the University shall be paid into a bank account of the University opened on the authority of the Council
    with the approval of the Controller and Accountant-General upon the approval of the Controller and Accountant-General”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I realised that same formulation was done for the University of Technology and Applied Sciences Bill. I am wondering the import of that, because clearly a sum of money could be received by the University itself or by the Council, or it could be received on behalf of the University by anybody.
    For instance, an alumnus could perhaps be given some moneys to be transmitted to the University. He takes the money on behalf of the University and gives it to the Vice-Chancellor, who would then appropriately receive it but then deposit it in an account.
    I do not see why we are saying that we should delete “by or”. I do not see the essence of it, but I recognised that it has been done in the previous Bill. Perhaps for consistency sake we may take it, but I do not see what offence it causes.
    Mr Ahiafor 5:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the University is established as an
    autonomous body, a body corporate. You do not want a situation where people would claim to have been receiving money on behalf of the University. You can only do that on the authority of the University.
    That is why we are saying that “moneys received by the University”—if you are acting on the authority of the University, it is by the University. So the amendment being proposed by the Hon Chairman is in the right direction and it is in consonance with the Navrongo one that we did.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:47 p.m.
    Hon Member, it seems you are saying something different from what the Hon Chairman said.
    The Hon Chairman asked us to delete “by or”. You are talking about “by the University”, but it would not be there again. So it would now be “received on behalf of the University”. That is what is left.
    So now it is not money received by the University, it is money received on behalf of the University. I do not know who is receiving it on behalf of the University.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is why I said that the amendment that was effected in the
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:47 p.m.
    Well, I thought this was something that you people have settled on, but it is interesting that it has been raised again.
    Let me listen to the Hon Member for Daboya.
    Mr S. Mahama 5:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 26(1) (a) to (e) impliedly are moneys to be received by the University itself, so the subclause (2) is now just making provision for moneys that would be received on
    behalf of the University. That is the reason why the subclause 2 was created.

    Indeed, all the subclauses under 1 subclause are all implied moneys to be received by the University. Provision is now made for money received on behalf of the University. That is the reason we took off the “by or”. This is because the first ones are received by the University.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:57 a.m.
    Hon Member, what you said is true, but the Hon Majority Leader has raised a situation where moneys could be received by somebody on behalf of the University.
    A person might put a strong case somewhere on behalf of the University. A donation could then be made to the person, who would receive it for, and on behalf of the University. So, when the person comes back, he would have to send it through the normal procedure for it to be deposited. This was the issue that was raised. I would listen to the Hon Member for Wa West.
    Mr Chireh 5:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we should abandon the “by or” in the Hon Chairman's amendment, and retain the others. We should not abandon
    the whole thing, even though that is what some people want.
    What is important is that the University may receive the moneys by itself. We know the University is not a human being, but it has authorised persons, who could directly receive moneys. They are the ones referred to in the Bill as “the University.”
    Again, a person may receive moneys on behalf of the University, particularly, if the person is outside the country. Therefore, we should not change it, just because it was changed in the other ones. It should remain as “by or”, on behalf of the University. I however, have no comments about the further amendment being added to it.
    Mr Ahiafor 5:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, upon a second consideration, I am tempted to agree with the Hon Majority Leader. I would, therefore, urge the Hon Chairman to drop his amendment. This is because if we look at it critically, talks about dedicated sources.
    However, with this one, the phrase: “any sum of money” appears to be omnibus. With this sum of money, the University itself should be capable of receiving it, or any other person could receive the money on behalf of the University.
    So, if we say: “any sum of money received by the University or on behalf of the University”, it is a proper rendition, which should be allowed to stay. We could then add the phrase: “with the approval of the Controller and Accountant-General.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:57 a.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, the ball is now in your court.
    Mr Quaitoo 5:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am convinced of the deletion of the first “by or”. This is because the moneys could be received by the University or on behalf of the University.
    However, when we come to the second one, it is the opening of an account, and the Council cannot go and open an account. It would usually authorise the opening of an account, which is already stated. Therefore, we should not capture it as “by”. If we put the “by” there, then it would mean that the Council would be the one to open the account.
    Therefore, in the second case, we should delete the “by or”, so that it reads: “…paid into a bank account of the University, opened on the authority of the Council.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:57 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, what about your amendment that says: “and with the
    Mr Quaitoo 5:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, for any public institution, one cannot do that without the approval of the Controller and Accountant-General.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:57 a.m.
    You did not add it. That is why I drew your attention to it.
    Hon Members, I believe we are now settled on the retention of the first “by or” of subclause (2). However, in line two of subclause (2), the “by or” should be deleted, and the phrase: “and with the approval of the Controller and Accountant-General” be added at the end. That is the understanding.
    Mr Agbodza 5:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we check many of the similar Acts that have been prepared during this Sitting, we broke down the headings this way; when it came to bank accounts for instance, there was a separate one that read: “bank accounts”, and it said that moneys for the universities shall be paid into a bank account, opened for the purpose of so and so, by the approval of Controller and Accountant-General.
    For some reason, since last month, we decided to box all these things into one section. For instance, we came to a point where for instance we captured them as “received for or by”. There was also a separate clause which said:
    “…expenses of the university shall be charged from a fund by the University.”
    So, for instance, when we say the expenses of the University shall be charged on the funds of the University, there was a separate clause for that.
    I believe that the bases of this is that -- somebody argued that somebody could go somewhere to receive money or spend money from somewhere else, but by this, one could not receive or pay money from any other place, except from an authorised source by the University. So why do we seek to now put all of them together? This is where the problem is coming from.
    Mr Chireh 5:57 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the amendment by the Hon Chairman is correct, except what we have already agreed on it. This is because all these, starting from (a) to (b) are sums of money, and that is why it is omnibus here. It says: “any sum of money”. This means that we expect that moneys would be received from these sources.
    If those moneys are received upon the approval of an authority, it may be paid into an account. One cannot pay it into any other account, but only that account that is opened for the University on the authority of the Controller and Accountant-General.
    Adding that part is not about mixing them up. We could separate them, but sources of funding have been listed we have listed then and therefore, the need for any of that money coming to be paid into an account that is opened officially.
    We could separate them, but there is nothing wrong with combining them. This is because the provision here anticipates that money would be received. It is omnibus for the sums, but it is important that it is put into an account authorised by Controller and Accountant-General.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5:57 a.m.
    Hon Members, the new rendition of the Hon Chairman reflects the sense of the House.
    The new rendition should therefore read as follows; “any sum of money received by or on behalf of the University shall be paid into a bank account of the University, opened on
    the authority of the Council, and with the approval of the Controller and Accountant-General.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:07 p.m.
    Hon Members, I have gone through the earlier laws that we have passed, and truly, there is no consistency. However, it looks like the current position is an improved version of the earlier ones.
    Instead of using many words as in the earlier legislations, like the ones on funds where they talked about Internally Generated Funds (IGF), they said “moneys that accrued to the University in the performance of its functions consisting of'' -- that was what was used earlier but the new rendition says; “internally generated funds including''. That is an improved version, so we should not be much worried about the lack of consistency.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, do you still have any further amendment of clause 26? If not, I would put the Question on the whole clause.
    Mr Quaitto 6:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a further amendment to clause 26.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:07 p.m.
    It appears on the earlier legislation but if you say it should be deleted --
    Yes, Hon Ranking Member?
    Mr Nortsu-Kotoe 6:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want the Hon Chairman of the Committee, to explain further whether the Council does not have the authority to raise funds from any other sources. If that is the case, I want a reason for its deletion.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:07 p.m.
    Could the Council, for example, engage in a fund raising exercise or activity? That is not donation or gift --
    Yes, Hon Member for Daboya?
    Mr S. Mahama 6:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, those ones cannot be gifts or donations. The Council could approve other sources for funds to come into the system. The clause is not fatal, so we should retain it.
    Reading it against clause 2, would seem like they are the same but there is a bit of difference.
    The first one talks about money from any other source approved by the University, and the second one talks about the sum of money received for and on behalf of the University. We should not delete it because it is not fatal and retaining it makes it stand alone.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the reason the House deleted the paragraph (e) when we considered the University of Technology and Applied Sciences Bill, 2018 was that it provided too much latitude to the Council to do whatever.
    For instance, the Council could go and source for money by way of providing funding for say, the construction of hostels -- they could source money from a bank to go and buy and run commercial transport ostensibly to make profit and use the profit to build hostels -- that would satisfy paragraph (e) and the Council could approve it.
    What if they default? It is a public University and the Government would be called upon to bail them out. That was why it was deemed appropriate to find a way to regulate how they source for funding.
    We should be careful otherwise, if they are provided with too much space, they could do whatever and run the entire economy into trouble. That is the reason it was deleted from the earlier Bill and the same reason could apply in this particular case as well.
    Mr Quaitto 6:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, to add to that, the Hon Minister said at that time, that there was evidence in some universities where the Ministry is dealing with some challenges with regards to what the Hon Majority Leader said. This clause exists in many of the Acts of the universities, so the Hon Minister, was very much particular about this and he proposed for us to delete it and he succeeded in convincing all of us so, we did. So, it should be deleted in this Bill too.
    Mr E. Dery 6:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to find out from the Hon Chairman of the Committee, if retaining this clause would cause any harm. If it would not, it should be retained. Probably, the Hon Chairman of the Committee could repeat what he said.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:07 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, let me listen to the Hon Member for Akatsi South, first.
    Mr Ahiafor 6:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 26 (1) (b), states:
    “internally generated funds including...''
    This means that the internally generated fund is not exhaustive, so there could be other means of generating income internally.
    What the paragraph (e) means is, moneys from any other source, and that must be approved by the Council because if the internally generated funds include ‘fees paid by students of the university, fees, charges and dues in respect of services rendered by or through the University, proceeds from the sale of publications of the University, tuition and hostel fees and grants, subscription, rents and royalties, it means that this is open and there could be any other internally generated mode to make money which is noted stated.
    There should be a provision for a receipt of money that is approved by the Council. So, if it is deleted, it means that if there is any means to get money which is not stated in the Bill, there would be difficulties.
    It is not wrong if this provision is retained. Once the Council has approved it and it is within the object of the University, it should be allowed.
    Mr Ahiafor 6:17 p.m.


    Internally generated funds certainly, is acceptable. --[Interruption.] That is clause 26(1) (b) (v). Even that, technically speaking, I have a problem including loans in the category of internally generated funds. [Interruption.]

    It is not standing on its own. Read clause 26(1) (b).

    “Internally generated funds including…

    (v) grants, subscriptions, loans…”

    I have a difficulty because internally generated funds do not include “loans”. It cannot be internally generated funds.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:17 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Ranking Member for Education?
    Mr Nortsu-Kotoe 6:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, what we did under clause 26(1)(b) - “Internally generated funds including…”
    When we got to paragraph (v), we realised that “grants” should not be part of IGF. So, we deleted it and then created a subparagraph which is “grants and loans” which is subclause (c); so, it is not part of IGF.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:17 p.m.
    I noted that down. In the earlier laws, they came under that omnibus clause but the amendment that was moved by the Hon Chairman is that clause 26(1) paragraph (b) add the following new subparagraph “(#) grants and loans” -- This means that we are adding it to paragraph (b). So, that is still under IGF.
    What the Hon Chairman moved was that the subparagraph would still be under paragraph (b). [Interruption] -- It is a subparagraph of a paragraph and he says we should add “grants and loans”. That was what the Hon Chairman moved. If now the Hon Majority Leader has raised an issue, that “grants and loans” are not IGF, then we have to renumber it differently. If not, that was not the proposal from the Hon Chairman.
    Mr Chireh 6:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman moved. At the time, we should have identified that it cannot come as the Hon Majority Leader is saying. Right now, we are now to determine where it should be, whether
    (c), (d) or (e). So, once we have taken that decision, the draftspersons should appropriately put it as a separate paragraph that would be --
    Mr Speaker, we cannot number it now because the person would decide where to put it but it should be a separate paragraph.
    Mr Speaker, the argument we are making about this one is that, all the other things listed are sources of funding. In the case that we have the omnibus thing, the university council must approve it unless we are saying that the university council would not be following policies of government.
    Mr Speaker, I hear the Hon Chairman talk about the Hon Minister not being comfortable with omnibus paragraph (e). The problem is not about his agreement.
    The Council too has to be given some autonomy to decide on how to approve these things. If there are difficulties, they would then revert to the Minister. If it is not provided and they embark on something which they think is within this law there would be a problem.
    Mr Speaker, with this, if you could direct the draftspersons to put “grants and loans” as a new paragraph --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:17 p.m.
    Hon Members, I get the sense of the House. I direct that the proposed amendment to add a new subparagraph to paragraph (b) of clause 26(1) is rather not to come under that paragraph but it should be a different paragraph to be numbered by the draftspersons. So that paragraph will not be under clause 26(1)(b), “Internally generated funds”. I so direct.
    I think it has solved the problem that was raised by the Hon Majority Leader concerning the issue of “grants and loans” being referred to as internally generated funds.
    We can move on to the next one.
    Mr Quaittoo 6:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it means that we are still on paragraph (e). I am proposing to delete paragraph (e).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:17 p.m.
    With the paragraph (e), we have not taken a decision.
    Mr Quaittoo 6:17 p.m.
    Yes, so, those who are of the opinion that we should let it be, could someone tell me one other source that is not captured under any of the paragraphs here? I still insist that this paragraph (e) is too open and vague and would allow abuse of
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:17 p.m.
    Let me listen to Hon Amoatey.
    Mr Amoatey 6:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Committee by his intervention is seeking to ensure that we enumerate all sources of revenue or income and legislate on them. I would want to draw his attention to the functions of the University.
    Clause 6 (d) states and with your permission, I quote:
    “The Council shall (d) promote income generating activities as part of the programmes of the University;”
    Mr Speaker, this in my view is a leeway, creative and an unlimited avenue opened to the Council to generate income for the University. Therefore, if we want to foreclose the avenues as we are seeking to do in clause 26, then the hands of the Council will be tied. I think there may be other creative methods of generating revenue which are not enumerated here and which by that
    function the University Council may employ to generate revenue.
    Mr Speaker, that is why I also support the view that we must retain clause 26(1)(e).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:17 p.m.
    Hon Member, will that not come under internally generated funds? Income generating activities will be internally generated funds but it is not specifically mentioned here.
    Mr Amoatey 6:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rightly so, it may fall under internally generated funds. The sources of internally generated funds have been itemised there from (i) to (iv).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:27 p.m.
    But because of the word, “including” it means that they are more than what has been itemised. So, whatever funds are generated internally could be captured under that place. We cannot itemise all.
    Hon Members, but I seem to go with those who think that we should not foreclose. Well, I do not see the harm that it causes when we open up the opportunity for them to look outside what have specified once it
    is approved by the Council. We should not forget about academic freedom.
    Hon Chairman, if you still insist then I would put the Question.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Yilo Krobo is making a germane point, however, I believe that what he is canvassing is appropriately captured in clause 26(1)(b) and (c).
    The entire 26(1)(b) -- in particular,
    “(iii) proceeds from the sale of publications of the University” and
    (v) ‘subscriptions, rents and royalties'.
    Mr Speaker, (c) is on “returns on investments”.
    Mr Speaker, we do not want any kind of investments or maybe short term considerations of monetary rewards. For instance, the Council would decide that they want money and there is a pyramid scheme somewhere; so, they go and deposit the money with the hope of reaping huge profits, but within a year, everything is gone.
    However, at the time that they were considering it, they thought that it would inure to the benefit of the university and it provided sufficient cause for them to do that. Yet, we all know that such ventures are
    misadventures, but for the time being, because they were determined to make money for the university, they took the money there perhaps in good conscience, but within two years, the money is gone.
    Mr Speaker, so, it is not every money from “any other source” that is unlimited that should be encouraged. This even includes money laundering.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:27 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, I do not believe that the Council would approve an item like money laundering because it is criminal. They would know because they would have legal support.
    Hon Members, we have a lot of work to do today. This is just the beginning so do not be repetitive. Let us move on. I would put the Question so that we take a decision, but I would listen to the Hon Member for Ho West.
    Mr Bedzrah 6:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, initially I was against the Hon Chairman's proposed amendment, but after listening to the Hon Majority Leader, I think there is some wisdom in what he said. So, I think that we should delete it in the sense that -- [Interruption.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:27 p.m.
    Let me just put the question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.

    Clause 26 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just a little amendment for clause 26. I think it is unduly verbose -- 26(1)(b)(ii) -- fees, for services rendered, charges for services rendered, dues for services rendered.
    Instead of using the word “for” we have used “in respect of”. We could have as well said, ‘fees, charges and dues for services rendered by or through the University”.
    I do not see where this “in respect of” and “with respect to” is coming from.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:27 p.m.
    This is drafting language and English Language.
    Hon Member for Wa West.
    Mr Chireh 6:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would beg the Hon Majority Leader that this is drafting and “in respect of” means “for the services”. So, we do not have to change it to suit his grammar. [Laughter.] This is how the draftsperson want it to be -- it is legal language and not grammar. So, I would insist that we should maintain what is there. If we change it then it
    means anywhere there is “in respect of” he would want us to replace it with “for”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:27 p.m.
    Hon Members, let us flag it because it appears in almost all the laws.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am not pushing this. I just said that we should look at it. It is not even only true that we have done that in all the laws, we have imported this phrase over the past four years but they did not exist in the previous laws. He could check.
    This is sheer verbosity and it has nothing to do with grammar or legalese. We could go on because I have no fixation on this.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:37 p.m.
    I am not sure about this so we could check and return to it later because we want the best for the country. We could later adopt that phrase.
    Clauses 27 and 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 29 -- Accounts and audit
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:37 p.m.
    It is the Hon Majority Leader who wanted to move an amendment.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was just reminding that for clause 29, regarding the books, accounts and records, we have a standard formulation that we have adopted lately. In fact, for the C. K. Tedam University of Technology and Applied Sciences Bill, we related to that and can ask the draftspersons to look at it and adopt the current formulation. I am just submitting the same application in respect of this.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:37 p.m.
    So, is it books, accounts and audit?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the language of the Constitution has to do with books, records, returns and other documents relating to the accounts. So, we have imported the language of the Constitution. I am saying that we should just look at it.
    That is the formulation we have adopted recently. So they should just look at that. I just said the Clerks-at- the-Table and the draftspersons should look at it and reconcile. I am just submitting the same application at clause 29(1) to adopt that new formulation that the House has adopted.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:37 p.m.
    Hon Members, our attention is drawn to something we adopted later on
    after looking at the language of the Constitution. So, we are being called upon to redraft clause 29 to capture that sense. Can we do it now or we should flag it?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we can leave that to the Clerks-at-the-Table.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:37 p.m.
    So, we would leave it to the Clerks- at-the-Table. They would re-couch it and we would move on and come to do it later. It would not only affect the headnote, but the body of the clauses.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was saying that you can put the question on clause 29, subject to that reconsideration.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:37 p.m.
    We have already taken the decision that it would be reconsidered. If we put the Question and say “subject to” -- I am told by the Clerks-at-the- Table that they would simply do it now and then we would take the new rendition today.
    So, let us move to clause 30. We just flagged clause 29. We would move to clause 30 and come back to clause 29 later.
    Clause 30 -- Annual reports and other reports
    Mr Quaittoo 6:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, subclause (1), line 1, delete “one month” and insert “thirty days” and in line 4, after “relates” insert “and make a copy of that report available to the regulatory body responsible for regulating tertiary education.”
    Mr Speaker, with the last rendition, the word “regulatory” is deleted. So it reads 6:37 p.m.
    “… after “relates”, insert “and a make a copy of that report available to the body responsible for regulating tertiary education.”
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition then reads 6:37 p.m.
    (1)The Council shall, within thirty days after receipt of the audit report, submit to the Minister an annual report covering the activities and the operations of the University for the year to which the report relates and make a copy of that report available to the body responsible for regulating tertiary education.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:37 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, in reading your proposed amendment, you have eliminated “regulatory”. You rather
    prefer the last word “regulating”. Why not “report to the regulatory body responsible for tertiary education”?
    Mr Quaittoo 6:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is the same thing. So, I was proposing “report available to the body responsible for regulating tertiary education.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:37 p.m.
    It is the same but the use of “regulating tertiary education”. This is because, we establish bodies, and we have established a regulatory body. So you specifically mentioned it “responsible for tertiary education”. In my view, that would be a better rendition.
    Hon Chairman, are you with me? Is it acceptable so I put the Question?
    Mr Quaittoo 6:37 p.m.
    Yes, it is acceptable.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:37 p.m.
    Hon Members, the proposed amendment is to delete “one month” in line 1 and insert “thirty days”, and at the end of the subclause, add “and a make a copy of that report available to the regulatory body responsible for tertiary education.”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:37 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, we still have a proposed amendment to the same clause 30.
    Mr Quaittoo 6:47 p.m.
    Yes. Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 30, subclause (3), line 1, delete “one month” and insert “thirty days”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 30 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 32 -- Statutes of the University
    Mr Quaittoo 6:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we deleted the whole of clause 32 and replaced it with a new rendition that is captured in the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 26th July, 2019; item numbered 13, page 13. This is because the whole thing was changed and it is the same “Statutes of the University”. So if the amendment is accepted, the Table Office --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:47 p.m.
    I do not have that Votes and Proceedings with me. I just have the
    one for Wednesday 31st July but you are talking about 26th July.
    Mr Quaittoo 6:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there were a number of changes. For instance, the old clause 32 says: “The Council shall enact Statutes for the implementation of this Act which shall in particular,…” This is not what we have in the new rendition. The new rendition says: “The Council shall enact Statutes of the University for the implementation of this Act. Then; the Statutes shall regulate the …”
    So we have (i) to (v) and then (b) also goes on like that.
    There are slight changes in what was proposed here. So, if we look at the C. K. Tedam University, that came as a whole amendment in the Order Paper.
    So, we just lifted what was in the Order Paper, which is captured here to replace clause 32 of that Bill and it is the same thing. The Statutes of that Bill and this one are the same. So, we just go and lift that one, which we did on Friday and replace it with this.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:47 p.m.
    Hon Members, the Hon Chairman is seeking the leave and your indulgence to withdraw what is captured in the Order Paper on page 14 on clause 32 and to propose a new rendition
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:47 p.m.


    which has been submitted to me. He has read it but I saw that a number of you were on your feet. I do not know whether you did not hear it. I could read it to you.
    Mr Ahiafor 6:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as a matter of fact, that was the position of the Committee but we got confused when the Hon Chairman was not withdrawing that advertised amendment and is reading another thing.
    So, the agreement was that the Hon Chairman would withdraw the advertised amendment and then allow the status quo to prevail. He can then propose a further amendment to substitute what the House had agreed upon when we did the C.K. Tedam University of Technology and Applied Sciences Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:47 p.m.
    Exactly why I put it the way I did. I plugged the loophole in his submission and I put it across to you. So, the new rendition to clause 32 is “Statutes of the University, subclause (1), ‘The Council shall enact Statutes of the University for the implementation of this Act.
    (2) The Statutes shall regulate the:
    (i) appointment;
    (ii) terms and conditions of service as determined by the Fair Wages and Salaries Commission;
    (iii) termination of appoint- ments; and
    (iv) retirement benefits of the employees of the University.
    (a) determine the persons who form the academic staff of the University;
    (b) determine the persons who are authorised to sign contracts, cheques and other documents on behalf of the University and to regulate the procedure in relation to transactions entered into by the University;
    (c) fix the academic calendar of the University;
    (d) determine the rules and procedures relating to discipline of students and employees of the University;
    (e) ensure that the seal of the University is kept under proper custody and used
    only on the authority of the Council;
    (f) provide for the procedure for settlement of disputes;
    (g) provide for any other matter required by this Act to be prescribed by the Statutes of the University.
    Hon Members, this has already been agreed upon by this House in an earlier enactment. The Hon Chairman is trying to let us adopt that for this enactment. So, it is for the consideration of the House.
    Mr Chireh 6:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, while we may not have any objection to this, this way of making laws is wrong. This is because if they have adopted that one, all the things that they have adopted in the other one should now be advertised for all of us to see.
    This is because we were all not here. You remember that last week, this whole half, particularly those of us who were interested in participating, were not here. So it is important that they advertise it.
    You cannot read and we make sense out of it. We should all see it advertised. So whatever they have adopted before, should be put on the
    Order Paper as the new rendition. This is because the Committee has no recommendation and he is making a recommendation and we are all at a lost.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:47 p.m.
    Well, Hon Member, I sympathise with the position but that is why I took the trouble to read through it. I know it would be difficult for you to recollect what you agreed upon but I did that purposely to get it captured in the Official Report so that it could guide the people who would compile the decisions of the House into the draft Bill for the assent of His Excellency the President. So without any further objection, I can put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 32 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, if we can go back to clause 29? I have seen the formulation that we have been adopting in recent legislations. I can read that one out and then we put the question, so that we close the chapter on clause 29.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, for clause 29 (1), in line 2, we delete the word “and” after account, then there is a comma after account, so we have “accounts, records, returns and other documents relevant…”
    So we delete “in relation as well”. So that it would read; “The Council shall ensure that the University keeps books of accounts, records, returns and other documents relevant to the accounts in the form approved by the Auditor-General”.
    Mr Speaker, that is the rendition that we have adopted.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:57 p.m.
    In other words, we delete “in relation”.
    Mr Ahiafor 6:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Majority Leader. In fact, that is the constitutional rendition that the House has adopted in the
    recent Bills that we have passed, so for the sake of consistency, we should agree to the proposed amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:57 p.m.
    You cannot go wrong when you adopt what is in the Constitution.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 6:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 29 (4), line 2, after “accounts”, there should be a comma and then we insert “submit the report to Parliament”, so that it would read;
    “The Auditor-General shall, within six months after the end of the immediately preceding financial year, audit the accounts, submit the report to Parliament and forward a copy of the audit report to the Minister and the Council”.
    Mr Speaker, again, this is what we have adopted in recent Bills.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 29 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 33 -- Convocation
    Mr Quaittoo 6:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, in clause 33, subclause (2), line 2, we add the word “the” just
    before “convocation”, so it reads; “The Registrar shall compile a register of the members of the convocation”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:57 p.m.
    Do we have “members of Con- vocation” or we have “members of the Convocation”?
    We have “members of Con- vocation”, not “of the convocation”.
    .
    Mr Quaittoo 6:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we
    said there shall be a convocation. So after defining that, when you come to (2) and you are defining the members of the Convocation, “there shall be a Convocation”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 6:57 p.m.
    It does not imply that you have to bring the word “the” there. “The Registrar shall compile a register of the members of Convocation which shall be published each academic year”. That is right.
    Mr Banda 6:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this kind of provision was adopted in our previous legislation, and I submit that the definite article should be there because there is a relationship between subclause (1) and subclause (2). That explains why in subclause (1), the indefinite article is being used, which is in reference to Convocation.
    In that same subclause (1), there is “mention of membership”. When you read subclause (2), there is mention “of convocation” and there is mention of members, which is referring to the membership already mentioned in subclause (1).
    Mr Speaker, so to that extent, convocation in subclause 2 can only refer to the convocation mentioned in subclause (1). So the definite article there is appropriate and apt. In order not to create ambiguity, I support the Hon Chairman's proposed amendment that we should insert the definite article.
    Mr Speaker, otherwise there would be an interpretational issue. Somebody picking the Act and reading the two provisions may not know whether subclauses (1) and (2) have a relationship. However, there is a strong relationship between subclauses (1) and (2). I therefore support the Hon Chairman's proposed amendment that we insert the definite article “the” to qualify the Convocation.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 7:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I disagree with the amendment of both the Hon Chairman of the Committee and the Hon Chairman for the Constitutional and Legal Committee.
    Mr Opare-Ansah 7:07 a.m.


    Mr Speaker, the issue of referencing Convocation and its membership is just like a reference made to Hon Members of Parliament.

    Mr Speaker, if we look at article 93 (1) of the Constitution, it says;

    “there shall be a Parliament of Ghana which shall consist of not less than one hundred and forty elected members.”
    Mr Speaker, in article 94 (1), it says 7:07 a.m.
    “Subject to the provisions of this article, a person shall not be qualified to be a Member of Parliament…”.
    It does not say a person shall not qualify to be a member of “the Parliament”. Convocation therefore sits in similar style.
    Mr Speaker, a Convocation is created, but the membership of the Convocation refers to “members of Convocation”, not “members of the convocation”.
    Mr Richard Quashigah 7:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that Convocation is not a standing entity. It is a yearly re-creation, where the Registrar would compile names of those who would make up the Convocation for that particular year. If that happens, that is where we would have to use the definite article “the”.
    Therefore, if we are talking about the caption: “the Registrar shall compile a register of members of Convocation…”, then -- [Interruption] I am not saying that the article “the” should be there, but what I am saying is that --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:07 a.m.
    Hon Member, what you are simply doing is to emphasis the point raised by the Hon Member for Suhum. So, you are in support of him against the Hon Chairman of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee.
    Hon Members, it is still open for the consideration of the House. I saw the Hon Majority Leader on his feet earlier on.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I argued extenso, the way the Hon Member for Suhum has argued today. That day, there was a spirited effort amongst three persons; the Hon Chairman of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Education, and the Hon Minister for Education.
    The three of them combined relentlessly to subdue what I had said, even though it was realised by the rest of us that they were wrong. However,
    they made their way through. Today, they should not have their way. [Laughter] --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:07 a.m.
    If we should use the term “members of Convocation”, and not “members of the convocation.” Hon Chairman of the Committee, you should do the honourable thing.
    Mr Quaittoo 7:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I withdraw the amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:07 a.m.
    Thank you so much.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Banda 7:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to move a minor amendment with respect to subclause (4), which is a very common amendment. It says; the Convocation shall meet at least once each academic year at the time and place…” It should rather be “at a time and place.”
    Mr Speaker, a discretion is being given to the Vice Chancellor to determine the place. So to me, if we say “at the time and place”, then it could not be determined by the Vice Chancellor. So, if the time and place
    are to be determined by the Vice Chancellor, then it should be captured as: “at a time and place”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thought that we had argued this matter out, and the Hon Chairman of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee was roundly defeated. However, the Hon Chairman wants to re-empty himself and bring the same issue back here.
    Mr Speaker, we said that the use of the definite article “the” is needed in that construction. The reason was that the construction does not provide that the Convocation shall meet at least once each academic year at a time and place that shall be determined by the Vice Chancellor.
    That is not the construction. The construction reads: “at the place and at a time already determined by the Vice Chancellor.” This construction should tell us that the definite article is needed when the determination has already been made. Mr Speaker, for the Hon Chairman of the Constitutional, Legal and Parlia- mentary Affairs Committee to bring it back, he does not want us to make progress. [Laughter] --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:07 a.m.
    Hon Members, the Question was put and agreed upon, so we would proceed.
    Mr Quaitoo 7:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 34 subclause (1), line 2, at end, add “as provided in the Statutes of the University”.
    Mr Ahiafor 7:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am opposed to the Hon Chairman's amendment. The reason is not far- fetched. Matriculation Register would not be provided in the Statutes of the University. Therefore, if we put it as: “as provided in the Statutes of the University,” it means that the Matriculation Register that the students would sign on the day of Matriculation is also provided for in the Statutes of the University.
    At best, the Statute of the University could only require that the students admitted shall sign a Matriculation Register. However, definitely, the form of that register would not be in the Statutes of the University.
    I agree however that the oath would be a form prescribed in the Statutes of the University. So, instead of saying: “as provided for in the
    Statutes of the University”, I would suggest that we use; “in accordance with the Statutes of the University”.
    “My proposal would therefore be that we capture it as: “students admitted to the University shall take the Matriculation Oath and sign the Matriculation Register in accordance with the Statute of the University.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:07 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, there is a proposal to amend your proposed amendment. What do you say to that?
    Mr Quaitoo 7:07 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I do not see it as being harmful. It may be the same.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:17 p.m.
    Hon Chairman when “ provided in the statutes” is used it means that the Statutes would provide the detailed form of that register but “in accordance with the Statutes'' would only mention that they have to sign and would not provide the details. That is the difference.
    Mr Nortsu-Kotoe 7:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the Hon Member for Akatsi South, that we change the
    rendition. If we say “as provided in the Statutes'', it means that there would be detailed specifications in the Statutes.
    But if we say “in accordance with the Statutes'', then it is just a requirement and whatever the Matriculation Register would say, then they would sign accordingly because the Register is only created by them.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:17 p.m.
    What is still to be added is;
    “in accordance with the Statutes of the University''.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are talking about two things -- the Hon Chairman of the Committee's amendment which relates to clause 34(2), and the amendment proposed by the Hon Member for Akatsi South.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:17 p.m.
    The Hon Chairman of the Committee's amendment is clause 34(1) and not (2).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:17 p.m.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, do you intend to propose any new
    amendment which has not been advertised?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a little observation in clause 34 (2). Clause 34 (1) provides that:
    “A student admitted to the University, shall take the Matriculation Oath and sign the Matriculation Register''.
    In subclause (2), it says:
    “A student who fails to sign the Matriculation Register shall be prevented by the University from graduating''.
    There are two strands. What happens to the first one? It says, a person is compelled to take the Matriculation Oath and also to sign the Matriculation Register. When the person does not sign the Register, he or she would not be allowed to graduate -- what if the person does not take the Oath?
    That is not provided for and I do not know whether it is an omission or that is how we want it to be. I would want to believe that something must be done to the extent that we make it compeling that the person must take the Oath.
    Mr Chireh 7:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, for the avoidance of doubt, we could insert the Oath element in the provision to become ‘‘or who fails to take the Oath, or sign the Matriculation Register''. Then the punishment would follow because the first subclause combines the two, so there would be nothing wrong if this part is added.
    If the Hon Chairman of the Committee agrees, then what the Hon Majority Leader has suggested would read:
    “A student who fails to take the Matriculation Oath or sign the Register shall be prevented by the University from graduating''.
    However, in terms of what we do, taking the Oath and signing the Register are two separate things - one could forget because they are the same thing - you all take the Oath and every individual must then sign the Register.
    When I went to the university, we were all called together to recite the Oath and after that we signed the Matriculation Register. [Inter- ruption.] The Oath taking means signing it -- one cannot just recite the oath and walk away. When a person
    takes the Oath, he or she must sign. It is evidence that could be provided in a court of law.
    Mr Chiwitey 7:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we may need some explanation with this one. We are human beings and could be taken ill at any time, but the explanation means that even if a person is sick and is not able to attend the matriculation and so, does not sign the Register the person would forfeit his or her admission and therefore, cannot go back later to the school and be allowed to graduate?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the event is not a one off event. If for any reason a person is not able to participate in it, arrangement could be made for the person to do that subsequently but if the person refuses to do -- the person is not even registered formally as a student of the University and that is why the subclauses gives that indication in which case the person would not be allowed to graduate.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 34 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:27 p.m.
    Hon Member for Sawla/Tuna/Kalba, the issue you raised would be taken
    care of by the Statutes.It would indicate the consequences and the provisions that would be made available as explained by the Hon Majority Leader, for those who at the beginning could not swear the Oath and sign the Register to do so.
    Clauses 35 to 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 38 -- Anti-discrimination
    Mr Quaittoo 7:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to withdraw this amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:27 p.m.
    The first amendment to clause 38 is hereby withdrawn.
    Mr Quaittoo 7:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 38, subclause (1), paragraph (e), delete “members” and insert “staff member”.
    So, it will read:
    “(e) promoted as an academic staff or other staff member”.
    Mr Speaker, it is just like what we have in paragraph (d).
    Mr Iddrisu 7:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I get the sense of the amendment of the Hon Chairman of the Committee. When you read clause 38 (d) it states:
    “(d) appointed as an academic staff or other staff member”.
    So he is saying that in paragraph (e), it should read:
    “(e) promote as an academic staff or other staff member.”
    It is just for consistency.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:27 p.m.
    So, Hon Minority Leader, you support the proposed amendment?
    Mr Iddrisu 7:27 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker, I do, except that in the paragraph (d), “member” is without “s”; the paragraph (e), “member” is with “s”. So, you may draw the attention of the draftpersons to take care of it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:27 p.m.
    Well, the proposed amendment is without “s”. The Hon Chairman of the Committee proposed the amendment to delete “s” at item numbered (xxxiii).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 38 as amended ordered stand part of the Bill.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:27 p.m.
    Well, Hon Majority Leader? [Interruption.] -- Hon Minority Leader, I have called the Hon Majority Leader. After him, I will recognise you. [Pause.]
    Hon Members, we are almost finished with the Bill, so let us try to focus because there are other Businesses for us to consider before we adjourn.
    Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I just looked at the wording in clause 38, and I thought the other day we drew attention to the language in articles 17 and 35 of the Constitution. We said we should ensure that we are consistent with the relevant descriptions of the language in articles 17(3) and 35(5).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:27 p.m.
    Article 17(3) of the Constitution deals with discriminate --
    Hon Members, we were at clause
    39.
    Hon Minority Leader, I thought I put the Question on clause 38?
    Mr Iddrisu 7:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no, I stood up but what the Hon Majority Leader had drawn attention to -- I was referring to article 17 (3) but he has added another leg which is article
    35 (5).
    Mr Speaker, so even as you put the Question, it would be important that you direct that draftpersons -- because in the universities, particularly what is happening in Winneba, we have seen where people could be discriminated against on the basis of what the Constitution finds repugnant. Therefore we would want you to direct the draftpersons.
    As for getting the words appro- priate now may not be possible, except that again in article 17(3), the disability is not the same as what is in this Bill. Hon Majority Leader may provide further guidance. They just summarised “disability” but in article 17(3), it provides an explanation of disability with privilege.
    I agree with him but if you put the question, please, direct that the draftpersons should be guided by article 17(3) and 35(5) in crafting the language here to strengthen the non- discriminatory acts and practices on university campuses, particularly for the University of Business and Integrated Development Studies.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, there is only one issue that is left out. It relates to circumstances of birth which is in article 35(5), otherwise, article 35(5) replicates what is in article 17(3). It is only circumstances of birth that is left out there, so, we could include that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:27 p.m.
    Well, “other beliefs” is also not in article 17(3). So, we could simply amend clause 38(3) which reads:
    “For the purpose of this section, “discriminate” means as defined in articles 17(3) and 35 (5) as defined in the Constitution.”
    Will that be acceptable?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, yes, we can just import the very words from the Constitution because, as you said, we have done so for the previous one that we did.
    What was noticed was that we left out “circumstances of birth” and “other beliefs”. But we included those in the University of Technology and Applied Sciences Bill. So, we better import and include the two here. They are forms of discrimination as recognised by the Constitution.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:37 p.m.
    Do we also define “discriminate” in the definition section? If you have the words of what we did earlier, I am prepared to take it on board.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the University of Technology and Applied Sciences Bill, in clause 38, we just listed them. As I said, when I realised that we have left out these two, we imported from the Constitution and inserted them in the Bill. So, we could do a similar thing in this Bill and then we could move on.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:37 p.m.
    I agree with you that we could do that, but do we do that now or we do it later? I want the text so that I could read it for the Hansard to capture it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that once we have the principle and it is understood by all of us, as captured by the Constitution in both articles 17(3) and 35(5) the religion, creed or other beliefs.
    We should insert it there, but before then we could have on ‘the basis of that person's race, ethnic origin, political opinion, colour, gender, circumstances of birth, occupation, religion, creed or other
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:37 p.m.
    Hon Members, since there is a reference in subclause (3) to subclause (1), we could easily insert what has been mentioned in subclause (1).
    So clause 38(1), after “ethnic origin” add “circumstances of birth” and after “creed” add “or other beliefs”.
    Once we have referred to it in subsection (1), then they are all captured.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just a little tweak on that. There is a “,” after the “religion”. We would delete the “or” between “religion” and “creed”. So it would be “religion, creed or other beliefs”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:37 p.m.
    So, we would simply remove the “,” after “creed”.
    Hon Members, the clause 38(1) would now read:
    “Without limiting the power of the University to adopt affirmative action policies, the University or an officer of the University shall not discriminate against a person on the basis of that person's race, ethnic origin, circumstances of birth, political opinion, colour, gender, occupation, religion, creed or other beliefs, disability, social or economic status to determine whether that person is to be …”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:37 p.m.
    There would be a consequential amendment to clause 38(3).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Iddrisu 7:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I see in 38(3) the definition of “discrimina- tion”. Why are we not adding that to the Interpretation section?
    Mr Speaker, 38(3) reads 7:37 p.m.
    “For the purpose of this section, “discriminate” means to give different treatment to different persons attributable only or mainly on the grounds stated in subsection (1).”
    So even given the consequential amendment that you read, it would go beyond subsection (1) to the other subsection that was consequentially amended. [Interruption]. Alright.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:37 p.m.
    Hon Member, I do not get the sense of what you put across because there is only --
    Mr Quaittoo 7:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the word “only” in subclause (3) should read “to”. It should read “(3) For the purpose of this section, ‘discriminate' means to give different treatment to different persons attributable only to or mainly on …”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:37 p.m.
    “… attributable only to or …”
    The proposal made by the Hon Chairman is to insert “to” after “only”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:37 p.m.
    The call being made by the Hon Chairman is to insert “to” after “only” to read:
    “attributable only to or mainly on the grounds stated in subsection (1)”. That is what the Hon Chairman is canvassing.
    Mr Iddrisu 7:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think we should leave it as it is. The “only” or “mainly” is to place the emphasis on the words in subsection (1).
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, rather, we need “to”. We say something is attributable to.
    Mr Speaker, we are saying that a person should not be discriminated against attributable only or mainly on the grounds because of the use of the word “attributable”. If you delete “attributable” then you could have “on”. But it is attributable to. That is how it is.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:47 p.m.
    I would listen to the Hon Member for Wa West and come to the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs.
    Mr Chireh 7:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with this “attributable to”, if you were saying attributable to a particular thing, that is alright. The reason we are not adding “to” is on the grounds. It is not “to the grounds”. Does he want to say
    Mr Chireh 7:47 p.m.


    “to the grounds”? No. We would not delete it. It is properly couched in the language that we all understand. But since he wants the superfluous in adding “to”, he can add it in his mind. But it is “attributable on the ground”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:47 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs?
    Mr Banda 7:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe that when we were taught English language, we were given words and their prepositions. I support the Hon Majority Leader because the word “attributable” can only go with the preposition “to” and not “on”. If you say “attributable on” that would linguistically be incorrect.
    So the proposed amendment by the Hon Majority Leader that we delete “on” and insert “to” is better. Linguistically, it is correct and better than the current rendition in the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:47 p.m.
    There are two proposals. Yes, Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the context, if something is attributable to something, it is being done on the grounds of. The difficulty we have here is combination of the
    two words. It is either “attributable to” or “on the grounds of”. So we either use one. We cannot have “attributable on”. That is incorrect.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:47 p.m.
    Well, I can hear the Hon Member for Wa West saying the Hon Majority Leader is right. Now, what is being proposed is different from what the Hon Chairman proposed initially.
    The Hon Chairman's “to” was coming after “only”, but the Hon Majority Leader is proposing that it should come after the “mainly”. And instead of “on”, it should be “to”. So it would read: “attributable only or mainly to the grounds stated in subsection (1).
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 38 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 39 -- Dispute settlement
    Mr Quaittoo 7:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 39, headnote, delete and insert “Appeals”.
    Mr Speaker, the reason is that the whole clause talks about --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:47 p.m.
    We are shifting from our earlier
    decisions. Now, you want it to be “Appeals”.
    Mr Quaittoo 7:47 p.m.
    Yes.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:47 p.m.
    This is because, in the earlier legislation, it was the same “Dispute settlement”, but I am sure you changed it to “Appeals”.
    Mr Iddrisu 7:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have a difficulty accepting the Hon Chairman's conveniently wanting to substitute “Dispute settlement” for “Appeals”. Maybe, we should marry the two because he should go further to clause 39(4), which reads:
    “The Appeals Board shall hear and determine on appeal, matters on …”
    When you come to the promotion of persons duly employed by the University; breach of an employment contract by the University, it is a dispute. He is envisaging that conflict is inevitable, and when it happens, a dispute must be settled. I do not have a problem with adding appeals, but to take off “Dispute settlement”. The headnote reflects the summary of the thought in the clause.
    In that clause, in 39(4), there are matters relating to settlement of disputes. So if the Hon Chairman could relook at it.
    Even with clause 39(1), there is established by this Act an Appeals Board of the University. Why do we want verbose language? When we were creating the University it was said to be the University. So to make it more elegant, clause 39(1) should just read:
    “There is established by this Act an Appeals Board of the University.”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the Clerks-at-the- Table could assist us. I think in the previous one, we said dispute settlement shall be prescribed by a Statute. Then we proceeded from there to deal with the structure for the appeals. So if they could assist us in how we crafted it.
    Mr Quaittoo 7:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, from what the Hon Majority Leader is saying it is provided for in the Statues. Dispute settlement is provided for in the Statutes. In clause 32 where we have the Statutes of the University, we have “provide for the procedure for settlement of disputes.” So dispute settlement is in the Statutes.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:47 p.m.
    Where is it in the Statutes?
    Mr Quaittoo 7:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, remember in the whole of clause 32 we replaced what we have in the original rendition of the Bill. If we look at the Statutes of the University, in clause 32 that you read to us, paragraph (f) reads:
    “provide for the procedure for settlement of disputes”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:57 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, you are right. It is there. It has already been captured, so this one deals with appeals. So you are right.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 7:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 39 subclause (1), opening phrase, line 1 delete “a body to be known as”.
    Mr Speaker, it would read 7:57 p.m.
    “There is established by this Act the University of Business and Integrated Development Studies Appeals Board.”
    Mr Iddrisu 7:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman's proposition in my view, is not elegant enough. “There is established by this Act, an Appeals Board of the University”.
    Let us not forget that in subclause (1), he put “University” after naming it. Why does he come here and want to say, “University of Business and Integrated Development Studies…” Then, everywhere in this Bill, he should refer to it as “University of Business and Integrated Development Studies”.
    Mr Chireh 7:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “There is established by this Act, an Appeals Board of the University.” We should not repeat the whole thing. This is because the University has been defined to mean this university.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:57 p.m.
    You are supporting the position articulated by the Hon Minority Leader.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Ahiafor 7:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to seek your guidance. Normally if we talk about “appeal” we are appealing against a decision so in this particular law, which provision establishes a dispute settlement in relation to which there would be appeal?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:57 p.m.
    We did that earlier. I am sure your attention has not been drawn to it. The lengthy rendition I gave earlier which has been captured included procedure for settlement of disputes and it is from those disputes that they are now appealing to an Appeals Board.
    Mr Banda 7:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, just a minor amendment under subclause (5), which is intended to empower the Chairperson and two other members to constitute a panel but there seems to be an omission of the word, “shall”, which should come before “constitute”. So it would read:
    “The Chairperson and two other members of the Appeals Board shall constitute the panel for the hearing and determination of a case or matter before the Appeals Board.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:57 p.m.
    You are right. Maybe it is the printer's devil but it is rather good I put that for the House to decide.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Dr Kuganab-Lem 7:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 39(2)(b):
    “two lawyers of at least ten years' standing at the Bar who
    are persons of high moral integrity …”
    Mr Speaker, I think this is a bit subjective. How would we determine persons of high moral integrity?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:57 p.m.
    It is a term of art as being defined by the courts. So, we know those of high moral integrity and those of low moral integrity.
    Mr Quaittoo 7:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are considering a number of amendments to clause 39.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:57 p.m.
    You have suddenly discovered a number of amendments.
    Mr Quaittoo 7:57 p.m.
    Yes, Mr Speaker.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if we look at clause 39(4), it provides:
    “The Appeals Board shall hear and determine on appeal, matters on …”
    Mr Speaker, I think when we were dealing with the C. K. Tedam University of Technology and Applied Sciences Bill, we found it relevant then because we are saying that these matters should come on appeal. So they should be heard at a lower level.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 7:57 p.m.
    Where should we place it?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 7:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we can have a new subsection 5 to read:
    “The settlement of the disputes listed in subsection 4 shall be in accordance with the Statutes of the University”.
    This is because before subsection 4 is on appeals so we should have a provision that would provide for the level at which it would be settled first.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:07 p.m.
    The earlier rendition that we adopted
    under Statutes of the University ends with “… Act to be prescribed by the Statutes of the University”.

    I think that takes care of what you are talking about, because definitely the appeals would have to be heard in accordance with the Statutes of the University, and that has been referred to earlier. Do we have to repeat it here?

    In hearing of disputes, they referred to the statutes, and the hearing includes appeals. It is not only at the trial level, but at the appeal level too it is still hearing, so I do not think we have to repeat it.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, indeed, I was in two minds, that they could be captured under the amendment that they did earlier, because it would mean that at the first level settlement of the dispute would be prescribed by statute.
    If that is the understanding, then we do not need to qualify it again here, but if we are in two minds then we could craft a subsection to respond to that, so that we are very clear that we are on the right course.
    If you think that what we did earlier would capture what is con-
    tained in clause 39(4), then we could leave it at that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:07 p.m.
    The way you put it, it is not what I think. It is not me, it is the House, and so you take the decision. I would simply draw your attention that we earlier referred to these statutes of the University. Do we have to refer to them here again? It is for the House to decide.
    Mr Chireh 8:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, referred to this -- [Interruption.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:07 p.m.
    Hon Members, the background noise is too much.
    Mr Chireh 8:07 p.m.
    The Hon Deputy Majority Whip is the one disturbing the House. He is called Hon Moses -- [Laughter.]
    If you look at clause 32, the first part says:
    “the Council shall enact statutes for the implementation of this Act which shall in particular regulate…”
    And they list the things. If you look at the clause that we are dealing with, again, it sets out under clause 7 it reads:
    “The Council shall establish the rules and procedure which govern...”, and normally the Council will do this in the statutes.
    So I believe that the issue of the procedure would also be in the statute, and we should not separately provide for any such thing again.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I said that for clause 39, we have appeals, and the appeals process should ensue from a dispute settlement.
    Do we now have to capture this separately, or perhaps go back to what we did earlier in respect of Statutes of the University where we have provided in subclause 2(f) that -- we have added a new clause which is on statutes of the University, and it provides in subclause 2(f) that the statutes shall provide for the procedure for settlement of dispute.
    So Mr Speaker, with that, I believe we will be covered. We may not need to come by a separate subsection under clause 39. That is the point I am making, so we can drop it, because it is provided there.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:07 p.m.
    Thank you so much we can move on.
    Mr Quaittoo 8:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, clause 39, there is a minor amendment here which is not advertised in subclause (6). “In the absence of the chairperson, one of the two lawyers as specified”, I think that we should delete the word “as”, in subclause (6) line 1.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:07 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, there is nothing wrong with the “as” there.
    Mr Chireh 8:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is nothing wrong. Apart from that, the subsequent provisions refer to that person as the acting chairperson. Then when you look at it, come down to paragraph (c) of 7, the functions of the acting chairperson, so it is referring to that. You cannot remove “as” there. If you remove it, he is the chairperson, but he is not the chairperson that was appointed by the Council.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:07 p.m.
    So there is nothing wrong with the “as” there. We will retain it.
    Clause 39 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 40 -- Interpretation
    Mr Quaittoo 8:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 40, definition of “Academic Board”, line 3, delete “38” and insert “39”.
    I think that there is something wrong with what is captured there. It should rather be “Appeals Board”, so in the Order Paper, it should rather read “Appeals Board”, not “Academic Board”, before this amendment can hold.
    So if we have it, then it becomes “Appeals Board means the University of Business and Integrated Development Studies Appeals Board established under subsection (1) of section “39”. We are deleting the “38” there to make it 39, because it is defined in “section 39”, not “38”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:07 p.m.
    Hon Members, clause 40 is dealing with interpretation, and so the proposal is to delete 38 and insert
    39.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 8:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we are bringing the definition of matriculation. It is not defined. It can be inserted just before “Minister”. So the definition is; “Matriculation means an event in which a person is formally recognised as a student of the University”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:07 p.m.
    In the absence of any consideration I will put the Question.
    Mr Quaittoo 8:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have another definition proposed by an Hon Member.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:17 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, we are now abusing the informality of this process.
    Mr Quaitoo 8:17 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, you asked me to assist my Hon Colleague --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:17 a.m.
    What we are doing now makes it difficult for the Table Office to capture the decisions of the House. That is why Hon Members are asked to always give notice, so that these things could be captured well.
    This is because after we have passed a Bill, it takes a long time for the Table Office to be able to capture all the decisions that we took here for the assent of His Excellency the President. Just because of the way we carry out our Business, we have relaxed the rules too much. Now, it is almost like it is unregulated, and that is not right.
    Hon Chairman of the Committee, we would listen to you, but you should take this on board. We have some more Businesses to do. You proposed
    an amendment, which you seek to further amend. It is not captured on the Order Paper.
    Mr Quaitoo 8:17 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we seek to define Matriculation. I have already given the definition so, I --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:17 a.m.
    You said that you would want to change the definition that you gave us, and bring in a new definition.
    Mr Quaitoo 8:17 a.m.
    No, Mr Speaker, I seek to bring in a new word; “industry.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:17 a.m.
    I would first put the Question on the amendment on the Matriculation.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Nortsu-Kotoe 8:17 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, when we were considering clause 4, we looked at “degrees”, and agreed that it should be brought to the interpretations column. We agreed that degree would be interpreted or defined to include honorary degrees. I would just want to remind us of that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:17 a.m.
    Hon Chairman, there is a proposed amendment. What do you say?
    rose
    Dr Prempeh 8:17 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would plead with the Hon Ranking Member to drop that. Degree as stated here, whether honorary or on merit, is a degree. So, we do not need to define degree again to include honorary degree.
    This is because universities have elaborate ceremonies to honour and confer honorary doctorate degrees on distinguished persons, and it is considered a degree, even though honorary. We do not have to distinguish that.
    Even in the University of Technology and Applied Sciences (UTAS) Bill, the Hon Chairman of the Committee proposed to bring degrees and honorary degrees, but we dropped the inclusion of honorary degrees. This is because we agreed that a degree was a degree.
    Mr Quaitoo 8:17 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, what the Hon Minister is saying is not exactly so. This is because when we were considering the UTAS's Bill, he was not here.
    We defined a degree and honorary degree throughout. Therefore, when we got to this Bill, we agreed that in order not to be repeating degree and honorary degree, we should bring a
    definition of a degree at the interpretations column, so that we say a degree includes honorary degree.
    That is why the Hon Member is reminding us to define a degree to include honorary degree. This is because in the UTAS's Bill, we indicated degree and honorary degree everywhere. We had a clear distinction between the two.
    Mr Ahmed Ibrahim 8:17 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the position stated by the Hon Minister is what came from the Chair.
    There was an attempt to separate the various types of degrees, but the Rt. Hon Speaker insisted that a degree is a degree, and therefore, we should not make the attempt of proposing an amendment in respect of honorary degree or any other degree. We did not make any change to that effect. It must therefore go in conformity with what was done at that time.
    Mr Nortsu-Kotoe 8:17 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I remember vividly that we had an argument on this issue of honorary degrees and other degrees. The decision, as far as I remember, was to delete honorary degree, and then in the interpretation column, define degree to include honorary degrees.
    In any case, honorary degree is different from the academic degree. They are two different things. They are not the same. So, I still stand by my view that we define degree in the interpretations column.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:17 a.m.
    Hon Members, the Committee has proposed an amendment for us to define degree to include honorary degrees. Those --
    Mr Iddrisu 8:17 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Table Office should guide us.
    Mr Speaker, your Hon Colleague, the Hon First Deputy Speaker, was presiding over proceedings when we got to a particular clause. A motion was moved for us to delete the words “degree”, and “honorary degree”. I would therefore want guidance from the records of the Table Office before we proceed further, if they have it.
    Mr Quaitoo 8:17 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the whole of last week, when the UTAS's Bill was being done, we made a clear distinction between a degree and an honorary degree. So, wherever we wrote degree, we brought a comma, followed by honorary degree.
    We saw that it was going to be superfluous in this Bill. The first time that we came across it, when we
    attempted adding the honorary degree, the decision by the Hon Speaker then was that we leave it as degree, and go to the interpretations column to define degree to include honorary degree.
    That is exactly what the Hon Ranking Member has espoused, and that is how it is supposed to be. We should therefore define a degree to include honorary degree. This is because an academic degree is not the same as an honorary degree.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:17 a.m.
    Hon Members, we are still on clause
    40.
    Dr Kuganab-Lem 8:17 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to suggest that we define the word “industry” as part of the interpretation. Industry would therefore include businessmen, industrialists and entrepreneurs.
    Mr Speaker, this is in relation to clause 5 (i)
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:17 a.m.
    It relates to clause 5 (1) (i). It says: an expert in business from industry…”
    Mr Quaittoo 8:17 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, we amended the (i) and agreed that we add the phrase: “… that is nominated
    Mr Quaittoo 8:17 a.m.


    by the Minister.” So, it reads: “an expert in business from industry nominated by the Minister.”

    The Hon Member therefore seeks for us to understand the word industry, so that it would not be hijacked by only those in the industries that we know because we thought about which body should constitute the industry and therefore, who should nominate the person or from which group of persons the Hon Minister should nominate this person.

    So, we would want to define the word ‘‘industry'' to mean, ‘to include businessmen, industrialists and entrepreneurs''.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:27 p.m.
    So, you support the proposed amendment.
    Mr Quaittoo 8:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Yes.
    Mr Iddrisu 8:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, even though one would have suggested that we zero in on the Association of Ghana Industries (AGI), I am told that earlier, there were arguments.
    Mr Speaker, the AGI, is a consortium of private sector industry leaders -- everybody is there and so, I do not see why we have difficulty with it [Interruption.] Is the Ghana Private Road Transport Union (GPRTU) not part of the AGI?
    No, I have worked with AGI, and with the Chamber of Commerce and I say that for this purpose, the person we would look for, must be a member of the AGI and I am very convinced about it. I could be defeated on the record and I do not mind.
    Mr Speaker, I have attended the meetings of the AGI at the Trade Fair in Accra -- if we talk about industry leaders in Ghana, it is at the AGI. If they want to establish and add GPRTU that is not industry leaders -- which industry would they define? I would move that it should be AGI and let me be defeated on the record -- that expert must come from AGI. As Parliament, we must respect those independent institutions.
    rose
    Mr Iddrisu 8:27 p.m.
    The Hon Minister for Education is on his feet. Once upon a time, I reminded one of their Hon Colleagues when I was on the Majority Side that they should not personalise legislation. Tomorrow, they may just pick a GPRTU chairman
    Dr Prempeh 8:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is instructive of the Hon Minority Leader to end by saying that it could be rotated. So he accepts the fact that
    the AGI is not the only institution in industry -- there is Chamber of Telecommunication which he presided over and they are industry experts. There is Chamber of Mines and they are industry experts.
    Again, we even frown on naming associations in the Bill because the Constitution allows freedom of association. Apart from AGI, anybody could form another industry, so in order not to allow us to name all those ones -- the Hon Minority Leader cannot say that those who are in the Chamber of Mines are not expert industry players. We wanted to make it general and not that we want to disregard any association.
    Mr A. Ibrahim 8:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader, said it could alternate between the AGI and the Chamber of Commerce. I made that point and I was almost defeated but I did not speak to him but he has also confirmed the point I made which means there is sense in what I said.
    We live in a country where a person could even organise three hair dressing machines and say he or she is an industry expert. If care is not taken, we may not get the kind of persons that we want. So, let us restrict it to Chamber of Commerce and AGI.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:27 p.m.
    So, do we leave out the Chamber of Mines?
    Mr Ahiafor 8:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Constitution is clear on the freedom of association -- there may be an expert in industry but because of the freedom of association, he or she may not necessarily belong to any of the associations.
    It should be possible for the credential of that person to be identified and nominated by the Hon Minister hence, we agreed that there should be an expert from the industry who would be nominated by the Hon Minister to give opportunity to people who exercise their constitutional right not to belong to any of these associations.
    Mr Speaker, the rendition accepted earlier, that there should be an expert from an industry nominated by the Hon Minister is in order.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:27 p.m.
    That one is accepted but we are now defining ‘'industry'' and that is where the disagreement is.
    Mr Ahiafor 8:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, they can give a definition for “industry''.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:27 p.m.
    Hon Member, for Binduri, can you
    repeat your definition, because some Hon Members did not get it.
    Dr Kuganab-Lem 8:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, “industry”, should include business men, industrialists and entrepreneurs”.
    Dr Prempeh 8:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would plead with my Hon Colleague to drop his amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:27 p.m.
    The definition is, “industry” include, business men, industrialists and entrepreneurs'.
    Dr Prempeh 8:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, he has withdrawn his amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:27 p.m.
    Has he withdrawn it?
    Dr Prempeh 8:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Yes.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:27 p.m.
    That is alright.
    Dr Kuganab-Lem 8:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if I may go ahead and give a background to what I said -- [Interruption.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:27 p.m.
    Hon Member, please, you are allowed.
    Dr Kuganab-Lem 8:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is a business university and in business, entrepreneurship is very
    critical. We are talking about people with vision and passion -- people who would find answers to pre-existing problems. There is a difference between an entrepreneur and an industrialist.
    So, I want us to ensure that for a university that is finding new solutions to a problem, it is not just about industry. It is critical that we bring in persons who are entrepreneurs to be role models to share new ideas and to find solutions to existing problems. I do not want us to go into just talking about industry.
    Even if it was a technical university and we are talking about industry, he could be perfectly right. Let us ensure that the spirit behind this is not under captured when we talk only about industry. In business today, and particularly, in business schools, we talk a lot about entrepreneurship.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:27 p.m.
    Hon Members, it is for the consideration of the House.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:27 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would even propose that in clause 5(1)(j), we just say, “an expert who has competence to achieve the aims of the University”
    because this University is not a university only for business. Why are we saying that the experts should only be in business?
    There would be integrated development studies. Why should we restrict the Minister only to an expert in business? It should be a person of demonstrable competence to achieve the aims of the university that the Minister should nominate. I do not even think that we should restrict it to business.
    Mr Speaker, if we have to go back, I believe that is how we should appropriately capture it. I do not think just restricting ourselves to business is appropriate because the university is not established only for the pursuit of academia in business studies. It is not and so why should we?
    Mr Speaker, let us leave it to the Minister but it should be “a person with demonstrable competence to achieve the aims of the university”.
    Mr Speaker, I do not know if there is a shorter way to do that formulation but certainly as I said, we should not restrict it to business.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:27 p.m.
    Hon Members, we are now defining “industry”. We are being asked to go
    Mr A. Ibrahim 8:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the essence of that person being an expert in industry by the framers of the Bill connote that they wanted to bridge the gap between academia and industry. So if we could find the meaning of the word, “industry” and put it there so that the person could be an expert in industry nominated either by the Minister or the AGI, I do not have a problem with that.
    However, we should not say because we are finding it difficult to state whether the person should come from the AGI, the Chamber of Commerce or any of the chambers, we should delete it and use, “a person with demonstrable experience”. That may be a bit relative.
    Mr Speaker, let us make sure that we go by what is in the Bill; “A person or an expert from industry nominated by the Minister”. Then, we define “industry” and close the case.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader says a person with a demonstrable experience.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the point I am making is that, it is not only about business, so we can then say, “an expert in business or integrated development studies nominated by the Minister”.
    Dr Prempeh 8:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, a word that could encompass all that we are trying to do will be “industry” without a capital “I”. If we say an expert from industry, we have so many types of industry; legal, medical, -- It is actually the common meaning of the word “industry”. It is hard work and that is it.
    I do not know why we want to separate --
    So, it will encompass everything; whether it is business, industry, entrepreneurship -- if you Google the word, “industry”, you would see the different types of services and the meanings that come. We have about four or five meanings of the word, “industry”. We should not restrict the word to “entrepreneurs” or “transport” because transport is also an industry.
    Transport industry exists; everywhere you go.
    We should leave it at:
    “…expert in the industry” --
    Education is an industry, so, probably, if we want to be more
    Mr Seth Acheampong 8:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you very much. I think that if we are going back to clause 5, we should allow the rendition to stand as it is. My reason is this: today, I stand here in this House and I am in the business of conducting public service. This is an industry. We pride ourselves to be in the space of an industry which is charged to do public administration.
    Mr Speaker, industry is very generic. If we go to the people who are on the sea, they are in the fishing industry.
    Today, our technological world -- A while ago we were discussing Chamber of Commerce and AGI, we have the Telecoms Chamber which is more prime than even the AGI because they are giants in our economy today. That is also an industry.
    In order not to dilute the rendition so much, I would crave the indulgence of my Hon Colleagues to allow the rendition as it is in the original proposition to stand in the Bill so we can make progress.
    There is no “the”; it is straight. Do you want to qualify it?

    Mr Speaker, my point is we should allow it to stand; we should not bother ourselves because at the end of the day, every industry is concerned with the economy. All we are doing is about our economy; we have tertiary industry and all manner of industry. Even, in the underworld, there is sex industry. It is all over. Industry is so generic and wide.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:47 p.m.
    Hon Members, we have not gone back to clause 5. We are simply defining industry and the proposed definition is that “Industry includes business person, industrialists and entrepreneurs”.

    We got to definition of industry at clause 40 and there was a proposal for us to insert “industry”.

    Therefore the definition was proposed as “Industry” includes -- even though he said businessmen, I know that there are businesswomen. So I said “businesspersons”, “industrialists” and “entrepreneurs”.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if I heard you right, you said “Industry” means businesspersons
    -- 8:47 p.m.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:47 p.m.
    “Industry” includes businesspersons.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, how could we say that it includes businesspersons?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:47 p.m.
    Hon Members, that word is being defined because of clause 5(1)(i) which reads: “An expert in business from industry nominated by the Minister.” That is why the “industry” is being defined.
    Dr Prempeh 8:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this industry is not with a capital “I”. It is just “industry”, and if we check the dictionary everything that is done under the sun falls under a certain industry. So, --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:47 p.m.
    The “Industry” with a capital “I” is limited.
    Dr Prempeh 8:47 p.m.
    Then we would have to define which particular “industry” among the industries.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:47 p.m.
    That is what he is proposing.
    Dr Prempeh 8:47 p.m.
    His proposal is very defective. His proposal even opposes what the Hon Majority Leader was saying. The Hon Majority Leader said that we would need people from industry and not people from GPRTU.
    I am saying that we could have an entrepreneur in the transport business and with that we would be going opposite what the Hon MajorityLeader said. So the easiest thing is to use the ordinary definition of the word “industry” in the dictionary that the Hon Majority Leader is holding. I could say that there are about 18 different meanings to the word “industry”.
    Dr Appiah-Kubi 8:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the use of the two words “industrialist” and “entrepreneur” is problematic. In my opinion an “entrepreneur” is anybody who combines factors of production and an “industry” could refer to a sector where goods and services are produced in an economy.
    I would suggest that in order not to complicate matters, we should let it stand as it is in the original rendition. This is because the moment we bring in “entrepreneur”, it would demand a further interpretation of who or what an entrepreneur is. How would we differentiate between ‘industry' and
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:47 p.m.
    Hon Member do you feel strong about your position, so can I put the question?
    Mr Iddrisu 8:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would persuade Dr Kuganab-Lem, who is an academic, to abandon his amendment. I would urge this House that we should probe deeper -- when we are establishing a university, that we are minded by its mandate.
    For instance, if we are to constitute the Board of Ghana Telecom University, justifiably, we would think of an expert within that industry.
    Also, when we are establishing a mines related university, we would look for an expert within that sector. So, let us be guided by this and then Mr Speaker could put the Question if the Hon Member has no strong objection.
    Dr Kuganab-Lem 8:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to withdraw my further proposed amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:47 p.m.
    We are doing this from experience and we know that it is not advisable to give very large discretional powers to people in authority because what comes out of our lips does not come from our hearts.
    That is the problem. So because of the mutual distrust, we are limiting discretion to make sure that when the discretion is being exercised, it would be done in a specific area. That is why the fears are finding expression in this proposed amendment.
    However, if it is understood by the House that we are talking about industry players in the field of the university; the sector that the university is taking care of, then we would leave it there. Because whatever would go to court would be interpreted according to the debate that has been captured in the Hansard.
    So, I would put the Question on clause 40.
    Clause 40 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 41 -- Transitional provisions
    Mr Quaittoo 8:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move clause 4, subclause(1), line

    3, delete “two years “ and insert “one year”.

    Mr Speaker, the reason is that we do not want the Transition Committee to be in office for a long time. So, they should be in office for only one year.

    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 8:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 41 subclause (5), line 1, delete “continuing”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 8:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 41 subclause (7), line 1, after ‘university” delete “ of” and insert “for”.
    So, it would the read: “The assets and liabilities of the University for Development Studies …”
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 8:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 41 subclause (8), line 1, delete “its operations” and insert “the operations of the university” and in line 2, delete “two years and insert “one year”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:57 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, you have to look at the rendition again. The proposal is for us to delete “its operations” and insert “the operations of the University”. So it would read:
    “The University shall be guided in the operations of the University.”
    We have to delete “its”.
    Mr Iddrisu 8:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is nothing wrong with what is in the original rendition. [Interruption.]
    Mr Speaker, I would have preferred a better word than “in its operations”. For a university, what is operations?
    “The University shall be guided in the operations…”
    Why “operations”? Maybe, we should find a better word. What is operations about a university? I propose for the deletion of the word “operations”, but we would all think through a better word.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:57 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, is it, “The University shall be guided by the operations of accredited universities in this country
    for a period not more than one year”? Is that what you want us to have?
    Mr Quaittoo 8:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is rightly so.
    Dr Prempeh 8:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the word “operations” becomes very difficult. This is another way of talking about affiliation or mentoring of a university even though we are heading away from that because when you go into affiliations, other universities charge you and so would want to find a name. So the word “operations” is problematic, but we can use:
    “The University shall be guided in its activities by existing universities”.
    “Programmes” is also a better word to use.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:57 p.m.
    If you just decide to say:
    “The University shall be guided by accredited universities in this country for a period not more than one year”.
    We are not going into the specific area of guidance. There is no use of operations, programmes or activities. So we just leave it wide open. They
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 8:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, respectfully, in establishing a university, we would need some time.
    One year is too short. Before you put the structures in place -- When you say it should not be more than two years, if you are able to accomplish it within one year, so be it, but 12 months, you would not even have established a fully-fledged university.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at the aims of the University, what we have done in clause 2(2), we said for the purpose of achieving the aims of the University, the University shall emphasise studies in business and integrated develop- ment studies and shall have one school of business, school of law, school of social sciences, school of education, school of information and communication technology and any other relevant school, centre --
    Mr Speaker, before we come to the establishment of these schools in just 12 months would be extremely difficult. So, I believe the two-year period should be reasonable and not 12 months.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:57 p.m.
    The University of Health and Allied Sciences Act has two years; the University of Environment and Sustainable Development Act has three years; and now University for Business and Integrated Development Studies, not more than one year?
    Yes, Hon Member for Wa West?
    Mr Chireh 8:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, first and foremost, I think it is just to be guided. It is not as the Hon Minister for Education was trying to imply an affiliation. He said he does not want affiliation. I am not talking about affiliation.
    They are to be guided and to be guided for two years; what is the meaning of ‘‘guided”. It does not really matter. It can be 10 years because it is the standards that are obtainable in all other universities that we are talking about. So, the two years should be maintained, if the Hon Chairman would agree.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:57 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member for Daboya Mankarigu?
    Mr S. Mahama 8:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think two years is appropriate. In the case of the other universities, there were sort of new universities. For the universities in Wa and Navrongo,
    there is an existing university. It is just a breakaway of an existing university. That is why the shorter period of even 12 months, in my view, was sufficient. But if we would have to push it to 24 months or two years, it is appropriate.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:57 p.m.
    Hon Members, we take it to be two years. I would put the Question.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Quaittoo 8:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 41, add the following new subclause:
    “(#) in furtherance of sub- section(7), the Minister and the Regulatory Body responsible for tertiary education shall ensure the equitable transfer of assets and liabilities”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 8:57 p.m.
    Hon Members, there is proposal to add a new subclause. It has been moved, and it is for the consideration of the House.
    Mr Ahiafor 9:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I believe the new subclause is unnecessary because if you look at the transitional provision in clause 41(7), it states clearly that:
    “The assets and liabilities of the University for Development Studies in respect of Wa campus before the coming into force of this Act shall, be transferred to the University of Business and Integrated Development Studies established under this section.”
    Mr Speaker, if the new provision is adopted, it would rather go a long way to create a problem in the sense that we may have to be looking at some of the existing assets of UDS. So the transitional provision is clear on what should happen upon the establishment of this University in clause 41(7).
    Dr Prempeh 9:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is an amendment I would support. Especially for what has happened on the ground even before we created this University. Assets are being moved left, right and centre, and people are complaining. So, we have to put a regulator over and above the existing UDS Council to ensure that assets are equitably done.
    Just recently, a whole faculty was moved from Wa back to Tamale and if we do not bring in an independent person and a regulator, it means that the person who is going to do this job
    would probably have to be the Minister who would introduce a lot of other ramifications. So, it should not also be left with only the UDS Council.
    This is because the President would in the next week create interim management councils for these two Universities so that they can start acting and that they would be devolved from UDS. So UDS alone cannot sit in this place and distribute assets, which has already become a problem that came to the Education Committee. So, I support this amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Mr Chireh 9:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, under subclause (7), instead of repeating the full name of the University, it should be transferred to the University since it is already defined.
    I think that should apply to subclause (6) too. So, Mr Speaker, if you could direct the draftspersons to take note of it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 9:07 p.m.
    Hon Members, the Hon Member for Wa West was talking about clause 41, subclause (7), the repetition of the
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 9:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when you said the assets should be transferred to the University. We should just say “… to the University” not “… established in section 1”. We do not need that. This is because “University” is defined. So we do not need established under section 1. So I associate myself with what he has said.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 9:07 p.m.
    Understood.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 9:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in line with the proposal by the Hon Member for Wa West, there are at various places, mention of University of Business and Integrated Development Studies. Conse- quentially, wherever it appears, it should just read, “University”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 9:07 p.m.
    I direct that the draftsperson should take note of that and do the right rendition always ending at “University”.
    Clause 41 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Quaittoo 9:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, new clause, add the following new clause:
    “Remuneration and Pension of Staff of the University
    (1) Subject to the Act, the Council shall determine the remuneration of academic, administrative and other staff of the University in accordance with govern- ment policy.
    (2) The National Pensions Act, 2008 (Act 766) shall apply to the academic, administrative and other staff of the University.”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 9:07 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, the earlier amendment we took on the statutes of the University, we said that the statutes shall regulate the terms and conditions of service as determined by the Fair Wages and Salaries Commission, retirement benefits of the employees of the University, et cetera.
    We captured these things. Why are you now differing from that position?
    Mr Iddrisu 9:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, but --
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 9:07 p.m.
    Well, the Chairman is withdrawing it so it is hereby withdrawn.
    Mr Iddrisu 9:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, even as he withdraws, there is something that I would like to share so that the Hon Minister may be guided.
    Mr Quaittoo 9:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I withdraw the amendment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 9:07 p.m.
    Thank you very much Hon Chairman.
    Mr Iddrisu 9:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, even though the Hon Chairman has withdrawn the amendment, I do not know the state but when I was the Minister for Employment, one of the major fires was at education relative to UTAG with the Ministry of Finance. The experience was that we had completed negotiation with two institutions -- one is the Judicial Service and the other with UTAG. Then, last minute when we concluded everything, the University came back to us to say that it is their Council which determines these matters and not the Fair Wages and Salaries Commission.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 9:07 p.m.
    So now, we have put it under the Fair Wages and Salaries Commission by law. They can no longer say that.
    The Schedule -- Oath of Office
    Mr Quaittoo 9:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, the Schedule, add the following new provision:
    “Oath of Secrecy
    I………………., holding the office of……………do (in the name of the Almighty God)(solemnly affirm) that I will not directly or indirectly communicate or reveal to any person any matter which shall be brought under my consideration or shall come to my knowledge in the discharge of my official duties except as may be required for the discharge of my official duties or as may be specifically permitted by law (So help me God).”
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 9:07 p.m.
    Then let me take what is in the Bill first. There is no proposed amendment to it. This is a new one that they are bringing on-Oath of Secrecy.
    Hon Chairman, I am not sure you looked at the Right to Information Act that we passed, whether it is in line with this rendition of your oath of secrecy. I am not sure.
    Mr Quaittoo 9:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, the Schedule, add the following new provision:
    “Oath of Secrecy
    I………………., holding the office of……………do (in the name of the Almighty God) (solemnly affirm) that I will not directly or indirectly communicate or reveal to any person any matter which shall be brought under my consideration or shall come to my knowledge in the discharge of my official duties except as may be required for the discharge of my official duties or as may be specifically permitted by law (So help me God).”
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 9:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the words of the oath of secrecy, I see the employ of a certain word, that is in the last but one line,

    specifically permitted by law (So help me God)”.

    Mr Speaker, what the Hon Chairman is saying is incorrect. “Specifically” is not known to the Constitution. The Constitution provides as may be specially, not specifically.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 9:17 p.m.
    Hon Members, this rendition was done for the University of Technology and Applied Sciences Bill, and that is what has been captured. In that one too the word used was “specifically permitted”. That was what was agreed upon by the House with respect to that earlier Bill, so I think the Hon Chairman just captured that.
    The only thing he left is “to be sworn before the Minister or such other person as the President may designate”. That too is not added to this new rendition. So we will add that and also say “specially permitted by law”.
    Mr Chireh 9:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is “specially”. He was saying “specifically”, and before the Minister.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 9:17 p.m.
    Hon Members, the new rendition has deleted “specifically” and inserted “specially”. It has also added [“to be
    sworn before the Minister or such other person as the President may designate”].
    Mr Banda 9:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we have left a word in the oath of secrecy as it is captured in the Constitution. “do (in the name of the Almighty God)”, “swear” before the bracket close comes.
    Mr S.Mahama 9:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in your further amendment where you added “to be sworn before the Minister or such other person”, it should not be the President. It should be as the Council may designate, in the case of the University. Why should it be the President?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 9:17 p.m.
    Is it the Council that determines or it is the President? That is the President, and that has been agreed upon earlier. I think it is right.
    So Hon Members, there is a further amendment to insert the word “swear” after “Almighty God”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    The Schedule as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Long Title --
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 9:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is communication to this House at the instance of the Hon Minister in charge of the University of Business and Integrated Development Studies who submitted this Bill and comes to the House on the instructions of the President.
    The communication is to the effect that the name of the University of Business and Integrated Development Studies be changed to the S. D. Dombo University of Business and Integrated Development Studies.
    Mr Speaker, in that regard, I beg to move that the Long Title be now changed or amended to read:
    “A Bill entitled S. D. Dombo University of Business and Integrated Developments Studies Act, 2018”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 9:17 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, we are dealing with the Long Title. What you read is the Short Title. Read the Long Title.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 9:17 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is exactly what I am reading:
    “AN ACT to establish the S. D. Dombo University of Business and Integrated Development Studies as a
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 9:27 a.m.
    Hon Members, the Hon Majority Leader has moved an amendment to the Long Title.
    Mr Iddrisu 9:27 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is a Busia-Dombo tradition.
    Mr Speaker, President Rawlings established the University for Development Studies. He did not name it after anybody. He was also in power, and his party was the ruling party.
    Mr Speaker, I was with him in Navrongo when the President announced the C. K. Tedam University of Technology and Applied Sciences. In the Upper East Region, in the Navrongo and Paga areas, there are respected persons like Abavana and Minyila. In the same Upper West Region, we have named

    I am aware that the Polytechnic was named after Dr Hilla Limann. So, we could decide that for the records, we would not support this. This is because Government cannot just give names to universities. We may even need a national body, which should be responsible for this. I agree that we should eulogise and recognise persons while they are alive, but it should not be partisan or be about traditions. It must be based on national interest.

    Like I said, with the Navrongo one, when the announcement was made we had highly respected individuals like Abavana and Minyila in that part of the country. So, the Dr Hilla Limann Polytechnic and the Dombo University should be done well. I believe we could be having national monuments.

    Mr Speaker, I was one of the earliest persons to publicly propose that the University of Development Studies (UDS) be named after President Rawlings. I however understand that he has declined. Therefore, on matters like this, there should be national consultations to build consensus. Other than that, if this administration decides that because

    they are in power they would select a name on their own, when we also come into power, we would also change and re-name it, but would that serve this country well?
    Mr Chireh 9:27 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, during the Second Reading of this Bill, I raised this matter that as a country, we should not go on this path of just ad hocly announcing names for higher academic institutions. It is not done anywhere. There have to be consultations, there has to be involvement and indeed, there should be a Council or an institution that considers all the issues that are being raised.
    Right now, we have the University of Mines and Technology (UMaT), which has been named as the Sir Grant University. However, no law was brought to change it. The President just named a polytechnic in Wa as the Hilla Limann Polytechnic without any consultations. The same thing was done with the Ho Polytechnic.
    It is not that we do not want to honour our heroes, but we do not honour them by suddenly bringing it at the consideration of a Bill, springing surprises on us all. It is not proper. Indeed, this is going to keep changing and changing. This administration has
    named UMaT the Sir Grant University, but who calls it by that name?
    The Hon Minister proposed in the Public Universities Bill, the change of names of universities. This has to be done properly, because we cannot continue to be changing the names of institutions.
    Names of universities like the University of Ghana, Legon, the Education University; Winneba, does not bring political or social tensions. If it is not properly done, it would create tensions, and people might not even call them by their new names. They must therefore come properly with a law that would be debated by us all and would be agreed upon.
    Dr Prempeh 9:27 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this matter.
    Mr Speaker, for the avoidance of doubt, with respect to the Ephraim Amu Technical University in Ho, we could bring documentation on stakeholder consultations, which proves that the University's Council approved of it. The university council of every university are the ones who nominate eminent persons in the country for their institutions to be named after.
    Dr Prempeh 9:37 p.m.


    When we take the University of Cape Coast for instance, even though it was President Kufour, who allotted some moneys for certain buildings there to be built, the buildings were named after a Vice President of the Republic.

    The Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), was also neither started nor brought forth by Nkrumah, but it has been named after him.

    Mr Speaker, the NDC Administration named the Thomas Sankara Interchange. What consultations were done? This is about monuments and institutions. What consultation was done before KNUST was named after Kwame Nkrumah? Making consultations is not the point.

    Mr Speaker, we could show the documentation on UMaT that proves that its Council approved of the name we gave it. It is not necessary for us to bring a Bill to that effect. What would happen very soon is that those things would be effected in law.

    The President choosing to name these two new institutions after eminent Ghanaians shows the importance of the inclusion of national history to our curriculum.

    If the NDC says that the Dr Hilla Limann University or the Dombo University was named as such because of NPP's own interest, then they do not know history.

    They do not know what the man contributed to the struggle for independence in this country. How many people know that a high street in Accra, called the 24th February Street, was named after President Mills? Did it come to Parliament for consultations to be made?

    Mr Speaker, the President has done what is right. This University is being named after an illustrious son of Ghana, but people in opposition do not know the history of his contribution to Ghana.

    When the Ho Technical University was named after Ephraim Amu, an illustrious son from that part of the country, what consultation was done? Who named the Asomdwee Park after former President Mills? Where was the consultation done? [Interruption.] Did they consult the Osu people?

    Mr Speaker, the President has done what is right. If the universities had a Council, every university that has been named after an illustrious son - with the Paa Grant University for instance; of course, people would not want to hear that name, but if there

    was an existing Council for it at the time it was named, they would have been the ones to ratify.

    This is a new university that is being created, and Parliament is being given the power to bring it into being, yet the Minority is talking about stakeholders. Which stakeholder is better than Parliament?

    Mr Speaker, I pray that we vote on this and name this University after an illustrious person in this country, so that we begin to learn the history of those who have contributed to be where we are.
    Mr Bedzrah 9:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we all know that the convention in this House, as we go through the law making process is to bring the Memorandum that accompanies the Bill for us to discuss. When this Bill was presented at the beginning, there was nothing like Dombo in it and we agreed on the name for the University, only for us today, to use the back door and add a name at the Consideration Stage.
    This is in bad taste. There should be consultation for us to agree that we want to name this University, Dombo University, from the onset and
    not when we are about to conclude then they want to use the back door to change the Long Title. This is in a bad faith and so, our Hon Colleagues should abandon it for us to continue.
    Mr Seth Acheampong 9:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as a country, we should pride ourselves that we do our best for our people. This is the Chamber we call the “peoples' forum”. We represent our people and I am glad that today, no Executive arrogates to themselves the power vested so much in them to name edifices for people that they wish. But often as the people's representatives, we have some involvement, and we are all being recognised. It would go on record and be part and parcel of what this country is headed for.
    I am really gladdened that His Excellency the President deemed it appropriate and proper to bring such a suggestion before us. It is a request to us and we know our traditions and practices in this House. When we do such consultations and conversations we agree on a matter, and that is why there are traditions and principles and practices.
    I would want to encourage all of us to believe in this manner and the form we traverse, and I believe Ghana would become the better person that
    Mr Seth Acheampong 9:37 p.m.


    would win in this engagement. This is the people's forum and there is no other place to hold such a consultation than other organs we would create where we would not have the opportunity to even express ourselves like we do here. I am glad that democracy is in motion here.

    Hon Colleagues, come on board and let us agree.
    Mr Ahmed Ibrahim 9:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, a proposal has been made and you are about to put the question for us to vote but before we cast our vote, we must have reasons. I want justifiable reasons behind the proposal to convince us. This is a new university and maybe, the name is just to bring consensus in such a way that everybody wholeheartedly within the Upper West Region and Ghana would come together to spearhead actions to ensure that this university becomes a success.
    If we are able to get justifiable reasons to suggest that there would not be any seeds of division in such a ways that while some push, others would pull it -- [Interruption] -- we need to build a consensus around this University, so I want justifiable reasons; we should vote for changing the University's name to the name that the President brought to this House.
    Mr Speaker, I call for reasons and justifications.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 9:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the reasons Hon Members are shocked are because one, the Memorandum which accompanied the Bill, failed to mention the reasons or the justifications necessary for the University to carry the names that have been proposed.
    Secondly, considering that this is happening at the Consideration Stage, it has become the practice and the norm that when such a major proposition is made, the call is made on the Hon Member who made the proposition to justify.
    So I support the call by the Hon Deputy Minority Whip that the Hon Majority Leader should justify why the original name that the Executive used to ferry the Bill to this House should be jettisoned for the names that have presently been proposed.
    When that is done, then this House being a House of records tomorrow, somebody conducting a research in respect of the reasons which underline the establishment of the University would know why the name of the University as originally proposed, changed when it got to the Floor of
    this House and that cogent reasons were advanced to support the proposition and the House finally took a decision.
    The ding dong debates in respect of the names proposed would not serve the interest of the institution that we anticipate to create.
    Mr Ahiafor 9:37 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in line with article 106, the Bill came to the House with accompanying Memo- randum and with your permission, I beg to quote the Memorandum which states clearly that:
    “The object of this Bill is to establish the University of Business and Integrated Development Studies as a public tertiary institution…''
    The Bill was referred to the Committee and the Hon Minister appeared before the Committee meeting and gave every explanation and the Committee also proposed amendments.
    But for us to get to the end of the Consideration Stage of the Bill for unadvertised amendment to be proposed that we should change the name of the University contrary to what is stated in the Memorandum which accompanied the Bill; I do not think this is the right amendment that
    should be followed; it never came before the Committee and was not even advertised.

    Mr Speaker, we must be careful to accept certain amendments contrary to the Memorandum of the Bill. I oppose the amendment which has been proposed by the Hon Majority Leader, that the name of the University should be changed.

    Mr Speaker, if there is any special reason for which the name coming from Cabinet should be changed, we need to know in a similar manner and not on the Floor.

    Mr Speaker, on this note, I am opposed to the amendment proposed.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 9:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you. I have heard an argument and a referral has been made to article 106 of the Constitution that the Memorandum never said that we were going to change the name. My Hon Colleagues
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 9:47 p.m.


    have been here, we just amended a Schedule and nothing was said about it. Everybody was quiet over this.

    Mr Speaker, it is not every nitty- gritty of an amendment that would be covered by this. The Hon Majority Leader had already explained that the President had made a request for us to consider as a House. This is a forum that we have to consider. If it is not politics that another person would want to do by objecting to such a fair request, I know not of any reason why there should be such an objection.

    Mr Speaker, I think this request is very nice and beautiful and I urge my Hon Colleagues that they should support the amendment.
    Mr Agbodza 9:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think the concerns raised by Hon Colleagues regarding naming this University after somebody calls for a national thinking in terms of the way we name things.
    Mr Speaker, I heard my Hon Colleague, Dr Opoku Prempeh ask who gave the order for Asomdwee Park to be named after somebody. I am not aware of any Ghanaian whose name is Asomdwee to start with. [Laughter.] -- In any case, if he wants us to change it into his name, we could do the same thing.
    Mr Speaker, if we begin to ask who named the Sankara Circle and other things -- If we travel across the world, there is Mandela Street somewhere; there is a building called Mandela. We cannot question and reduce the naming of certain things.
    Mr Speaker, do they want to equate what we are doing here to the naming of UST after the first President of this country? No! No! No! No!
    Mr Speaker, the public would think that all we do as politicians is to serve ourselves, name things after ourselves -- that ordinary people in this country who serve this country diligently do not have to take part in that.
    Mr Speaker, I would want my Hon Brother to know that the street naming in this country is done by the MMDAs. It is not an MMDCE or anybody who just gets up and names them. There is a procedure to do that. It is wrong for us to just wake up one day to do that.
    What is the justification to name all the universities in the north after people related to their political traditions? When President Rawlings started the University and wanted it to be named after him, they blocked it. People of their extraction blocked it. Today, they
    are chopping the universities up and naming them after themselves. That is not right.
    Mr Speaker, let us have a standard way of naming things so that the people of this country do not think that it is politicians only naming --
    If I stay in Parliament for 100 years, does that mean that I am better than the farmer? It is not. We should avoid the self-aggrandisement by naming important things after people of our own political extraction. It is wrong.
    Hon C. K. Tedam is a statesman but can we say that if we give the people of the Upper West Region the opportunity, that is the name they would give? The Hon Minister is just serving notice that he is coming back to name the Ho Technical University after somebody.
    I can tell him that we will resist it; we will not allow you to change the name -- [Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I am just checking the abbreviation. So what will be the abbreviation of the University? What will be written at the back of their T- shirts? CKTUTA -- I mean there would not be enough space to write these -- [Laughter.]
    Mr Speaker, let us do things right. I will prefer that the country has a standard way of naming things whether they are hospitals, schools, streets, so that there is a bit of understanding as to why everybody should buy into it. But if NDC gets up and names something after somebody they think it is theirs; if NPP gets up and does same, I think the country would be fed up very soon.
    Mr Speaker, I do not have problems with C. K. Tedam. I know he is a statesman. Is it the best way we could do this? I do not think so and I am not going to support this.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 9:47 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to add my voice to this debate on the Floor.
    Mr Speaker, before I make my own comments and raise issues in respect of the matter before the House, let me respond to my Hon Friend Ahiafor. He had said that if care is not taken, one day, the University College of Education, Winneba, would be named after Afenyo-Markin.
    Mr Speaker, I am an illustrious son of Effutu. [Hear! Hear!] I have been an Assemblyman, a Presiding Member, an entrepreneur who has created jobs in Effutu, and now
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 9:57 p.m.


    Mr Speaker, so, the fact that it is somebody and not another should not lead us into tearing ourselves apart. We go with pride to educate ourselves in foreign universities with long names after people who served their countries; George Washington University, is it not there? [Interruption] Do we not have John F. Kennedy? Name them.

    In Ghana, we have KNUST; what is KNUST? My good friend, Hon Kwame Agbodza spoke about the abbreviation. Is KNUST not a mouthful? But it is Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology.

    Mr Speaker, on an important day like this, some courtesy is required. This is the time for us to debate on issues. Anybody who intends to raise an issue must rise on a point of order or wait for his turn.

    Mr Speaker, are we saying that the Kotoka International Airport was built by Kotoka? What are some people saying?

    Mr Speaker, it appears --

    Mr Speaker, may I remind my Hon Colleagues what you have said some time ago when you were the Hon Majority Leader, “reckless heckling”. There must be some patience to listen to the views from the Majority.

    Mr Speaker, today, all that the Minority is saying is not in objection to the naming of a university after an illustrious Ghanaian. Their problem is “who”. Must that be the basis for them to stampede the process because it is not somebody that they would be comfortable with and so we should not do it at all?

    Mr Speaker, they are not looking into the future clearly --
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 9:57 p.m.
    Hon Member, is it a point of order?
    Mr Quashigah 9:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is in my considered view that Hon Afenyo-Markin is leading us astray. If they say somebody is an illustrious son of the soil for which reason he
    must be honoured, then they must be able to give us in clear and vivid terms what makes that individual illustrious.
    If we talk about Hon Afenyo- Markin as qualified for the University of Winneba to be named after him it is because he was an assembly member, a Presiding Member, an entrepreneur who had created jobs in the area and also a serving Hon Member of Parliament.
    But when we talk about S. D. Dombo then what are we talking about exactly? That is the criterion we are calling for and if we are convinced by that criterion then why not? But it is clear that this House is divided as to the credentials of the person that the university is to be named after, and so those who are proposing it must be able to convince us that these are the reasons for which the University should be named after Dombo.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 9:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the point is very simple. Is it the contention of the Minority that the naming of the person being of a certain political persuasion as they perceive same to be, they are saying a big no to same? In any event, is the Minority objecting to the naming of the
    university for very specific reasons? No. Mr Speaker, at this point, we should stay away from petty, partisan, parochial debates, and address the issue of national pride.
    Mr Speaker, if it is about Dombo, we know that he once served his people in this Chamber. Is it about that? Is it about C. K. Tedam? Has he not once served this nation?
    Mr Speaker, it is important at this point for those who do not know to know that the man was right here. If we begin to limit ourselves to such pettiness then we would never make progress.

    Mr Speaker, Hon Yieleh Chireh who is against heckling is heckling me. Mr Speaker, I should make my debate in peace. They cannot point to any specific rule that the Hon Majority Leader in moving the amendment has offended. So, if they are now saying that they do not like the person then we could never make
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 9:57 p.m.


    any progress. Mr Speaker, but I know that if it had been Haruna Iddrisu University the Minority would not have objected. They would never reject that and it is clear. So, let us move away from the partisan political persuasion line of arguments and look at the substance.

    Mr Speaker, they are now saying that “justification” so let me address them on the justification. When the Minority appears to have made its mind, then what better dance could ever convince them? What justification? Whatever they would want it to be is subjective.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 9:57 p.m.
    Hon Member?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 9:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order in respect of misinformation. Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Effutu is asserting forcefully that the Minority does not like the name of the person being proposed.
    That has never been our position. Indeed, the Hansard would bear us out that we are saying that by practice, where a major amendment is being proposed at the Consideration Stage, the hallowed practice is that a form
    of justification is given. We have learnt this at the feet of the Hon Majority Leader and so it was never the case that we said we do not like the name of the person being proposed.
    We are only saying that they should justify why they are making that proposal at this stage and then we could consider it and put it to a vote.
    Mr Speaker, this is my humble submission.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 9:57 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Hon Dafeamekpor has elected to speak for the Minority, but the views he expressed are his own views because Hon Agbodza had a different view. Hon Agbodza never argued on grounds of justification because he said that he was against the name. Mr Speaker, that is what he said and it is in the Hansard.
    Mr Speaker, the man is an illustrious son -- simpliciter. The man has served this nation, led his people and he has been selfless. So, what other justification do they want? Mr Speaker, we do not need to waste time and break our necks on this matter.

    Mr Speaker, I do not think that they intend doing anything to this in future. [Interruption.] Will you do it? Then you may never come to power. -- [Laughter.]
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 9:57 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader?
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:07 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, some issues have been raised about the matter that I am canvassing that we name the University of Business and Integrated Development Studies after the illustrious son of Ghana, S. D. Dombo.
    Mr Speaker, people have raised issues about the justification. First of all, we all recognised that S. D. Dombo merits this proposal to name the University after him. He is one of the eminent persons of this country and one of the foremost politicians this country has produced from the northern section of this country.
    Mr Speaker, S. D. Dombo was part of the independence struggle of this country and registered the presence of the people from the north boldly in the First Parliament of this country. It was proposed at the inception of that First Parliament to post independence for him to have
    even led the Minority group in Parliament for reasons of profound selflessness. S. D. Dombo surrendered the position of Leader of the Minority to Dr K. A. Busia out of extreme selflessness.
    He was into politics not for self- aggrandisement. If you are talking and citing a person of political correctness, a person in this country who has demonstrably shown to be against contorted politics, corrupt politics in this country, one such person is S. D. Dombo.
    Mr Speaker we believe such a person needs the recognition. And the recognition should be given to people who deserve it. For a long while, attempts have been made to contort the history of this country. When the real history of this country chronicles, deserving people would be given sufficient recognition. And this is what we seek to do today.
    Mr Speaker, an issue is being raised about the fact that the name did not appear in the Explanatory Memorandum. What is the purpose of memorandum that accompanies a Bill? The purpose is to define a policy for the introduction of a Bill.
    So what has it got to do with a name if there should be a name change? A memorandum defines the
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 10:07 p.m.


    policy and principles underpinning the introduction of any Bill. Is anybody suggesting that the naming of the University after S. D. Dombo offends the Memorandum in the sense that it runs contrary to the policy and principle underpinning the Bill? Is that the suggestion?

    Mr Speaker, a memorandum would identify the defects in existing regime. And in this case, the Memorandum that we have accompanying the Bill identifies the fact that there are disparities in access to higher education.

    And so to address the balance of access and guarantee equity in the distribution of national resources, it is proposed to split the University of Development Studies into three autonomous universities; one in Tamale, another in Navrongo and the other in Wa.

    Mr Speaker, what has the naming of this University after S. D. Dombo got to do that is against Memorandum, the principle, the policy and defect in the existing regime? What has the naming of the University after S. D. Dombo got to with the remedies to deal with this?

    The necessity for the introduction of the University is also captured in

    the Memorandum. The Question to ask is what has the naming of this University after S. D. Dombo got to do with these reasons; the justification and rationalisation for the introduction of the University in Wa and perhaps subsequently in other parts of Upper West Region and maybe other parts of the country.

    So, Mr Speaker, it beats my imagination when people are saying that we cannot introduce this at this level, and that we are introducing it through the back door. What is the back door in this? I believe we should be candid with ourselves. Nothing untoward is being done. It is most appropriate to introduce what we are introducing at this stage.

    Mr Speaker, I would beg of you because many people have spoken to this. There are other matters that must be done before we finally take a bow this evening.

    I would want to plead that you put the Question because we are getting to repeat ourselves, and nothing new is being raised against this matter that I have brought to this House for consideration and adoption.

    Mr Speaker, I thank you and plead with you to put the Question at this stage.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 10:07 p.m.
    Hon Majority Leader, you have to respond to the dictates of Standing Order 51 -- Communications from the President to the House -- I quote:
    “Communication from the President to the House shall be made to Mr Speaker by written message signed by the President or in the absence of the President, by the Vice-President or by a Minister acting by command of the President.”

    From the Communication, I know the Hon Majority Leader has been copied. And so properly, from my understanding of Standing Order 51, the announcement should have come from the Chair, the Speaker, then I would call on you to move the amendment. It is a procedure, and I would want the Hon Majority Leader to address that. I would want us to set a precedence worthy of emulation.
    Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu